AJR Join ARRS
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Horger, M.
Right arrow Articles by Bares, R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Horger, M.
Right arrow Articles by Bares, R.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
AJR 2004; 183:655-661
© American Roentgen Ray Society


Musculoskeletal Imaging

Evaluation of Combined Transmission and Emission Tomography for Classification of Skeletal Lesions

Marius Horger1, Susanne Martina Eschmann2, Christina Pfannenberg1, Reinhard Vonthein3, Hariolf Besenfelder2, C. D. Claussen1 and Roland Bares2

1 Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Eberhard-Karls-University, Hoppe-Seyler-Strasse 3, Tuebingen 72076, Germany.
2 Department of Nuclear Medicine, Eberhard-Karls-University, Ottfried-Müller-Strasse 14, Tuebingen 72076, Germany.
3 Department of Medical Biometry, Eberhard-Karls-University, Westbahnhofstrasse 55, Tuebingen 72070, Germany.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE. This study assessed the benefit of transmission emission tomography (TET) for classification of skeletal lesions in patients with known malignant disease.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS. The TET technology combines acquisition of SPECT and CT data using the same imaging device, thus allowing perfect overlay of anatomic and functional images. We performed TET in 47 patients with tumors who had a total of 104 focal lesions found on bone scintigraphy. Technetium-99m diphosphonate was used as the radiopharmaceutical in all patients. Findings of bone scintigraphy (planar and SPECT), SPECT + CT or radiography, and TET were compared with regard to the precise location and nature (benign vs malignant) of each lesion. Validation was achieved by radiologic follow-up on CT, MRI, or radiography, especially for the extremities, and using biopsy results in five patients.

RESULTS. TET could classify 88 (85%) of 104 lesions compared with 37 (36%) of 104 on SPECT. When we counted inconclusive studies as positive for cancer, discrepant findings between SPECT and TET were obtained in 39 lesions. In 38 (97%) of these, TET was correct. Sensitivity for cancer detection was 98% for TET and 94% for SPECT (p = 0.63), and specificity was 81% for TET and 19% for SPECT (p < 0.0001). The highest diagnostic gain was in the spine, thoracic cage, skull, and pelvis. Small osteolytic lesions were missed because of the limited resolution of transmission images. SPECT + CT or radiography and TET were discordant in nine of 104 lesions. TET was false-negative in one lesion and false-positive in another, and SPECT + CT or radiography was false-positive in seven lesions. As a result, sensitivities of TET and SPECT + CT or radiography were nearly the same, but the specificity of TET was significantly higher (p = 0.015).

CONCLUSION. TET improves the accuracy of bone scintigraphy by correctly classifying equivocal lesions, especially by identifying benign abnormalities in the axial skeleton and thus increasing the specificity of positive findings.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
JNMHome page
A. K. Buck, S. Nekolla, S. Ziegler, A. Beer, B. J. Krause, K. Herrmann, K. Scheidhauer, H.-J. Wester, E. J. Rummeny, M. Schwaiger, et al.
SPECT/CT
J. Nucl. Med., August 1, 2008; 49(8): 1305 - 1319.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
JNMHome page
E. Even-Sapir, G. Flusser, H. Lerman, G. Lievshitz, and U. Metser
SPECT/Multislice Low-Dose CT: A Clinically Relevant Constituent in the Imaging Algorithm of Nononcologic Patients Referred for Bone Scintigraphy
J. Nucl. Med., February 1, 2007; 48(2): 319 - 324.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
JNMHome page
L. Filippi and O. Schillaci
Usefulness of Hybrid SPECT/CT in 99mTc-HMPAO-Labeled Leukocyte Scintigraphy for Bone and Joint Infections
J. Nucl. Med., December 1, 2006; 47(12): 1908 - 1913.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
JNMHome page
W. Romer, A. Nomayr, M. Uder, W. Bautz, and T. Kuwert
SPECT-Guided CT for Evaluating Foci of Increased Bone Metabolism Classified as Indeterminate on SPECT in Cancer Patients
J. Nucl. Med., July 1, 2006; 47(7): 1102 - 1106.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
JNMHome page
D. Delbeke, R. E. Coleman, M. J. Guiberteau, M. L. Brown, H. D. Royal, B. A. Siegel, D. W. Townsend, L. L. Berland, J. A. Parker, G. Zubal, et al.
Procedure Guideline for SPECT/CT Imaging 1.0
J. Nucl. Med., July 1, 2006; 47(7): 1227 - 1234.
[Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2004 by the American Roentgen Ray Society.