Cargando…

Quantitative vs. Qualitative SPECT-CT Diagnostic Accuracy in Bone Lesion Evaluation—A Review of the Literature

(1) Background: Considering the importance that quantitative molecular imaging has gained and the need for objective and reproducible image interpretation, the aim of the present review is to emphasize the benefits of performing a quantitative interpretation of single photon emission computed tomogr...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Mutuleanu, Mario-Demian, Paun, Diana Loreta, Lazar, Alexandra Maria, Petroiu, Cristina, Trifanescu, Oana Gabriela, Anghel, Rodica Maricela, Gherghe, Mirela
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10529093/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37761338
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics13182971
_version_ 1785111346612797440
author Mutuleanu, Mario-Demian
Paun, Diana Loreta
Lazar, Alexandra Maria
Petroiu, Cristina
Trifanescu, Oana Gabriela
Anghel, Rodica Maricela
Gherghe, Mirela
author_facet Mutuleanu, Mario-Demian
Paun, Diana Loreta
Lazar, Alexandra Maria
Petroiu, Cristina
Trifanescu, Oana Gabriela
Anghel, Rodica Maricela
Gherghe, Mirela
author_sort Mutuleanu, Mario-Demian
collection PubMed
description (1) Background: Considering the importance that quantitative molecular imaging has gained and the need for objective and reproducible image interpretation, the aim of the present review is to emphasize the benefits of performing a quantitative interpretation of single photon emission computed tomography-computed tomography (SPECT-CT) studies compared to qualitative interpretation methods in bone lesion evaluations while suggesting new directions for research on this topic. (2) Methods: By conducting comprehensive literature research, we performed an analysis of published data regarding the use of quantitative and qualitative SPECT-CT in the evaluation of bone metastases. (3) Results: Several studies have evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of quantitative and qualitative SPECT-CT in differentiating between benign and metastatic bone lesions. We collected the sensitivity and specificity for both quantitative and qualitative SPECT-CT; their values ranged between 74–92% and 81–93% for quantitative bone SPECT-CT and between 60–100% and 41–100% for qualitative bone SPECT-CT. (4) Conclusions: Both qualitative and quantitative SPECT-CT present an increased potential for better differentiating between benign and metastatic bone lesions, with the latter offering additional objective information, thus increasing diagnostic accuracy and enabling the possibility of performing treatment response evaluation through accurate measurements.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10529093
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-105290932023-09-28 Quantitative vs. Qualitative SPECT-CT Diagnostic Accuracy in Bone Lesion Evaluation—A Review of the Literature Mutuleanu, Mario-Demian Paun, Diana Loreta Lazar, Alexandra Maria Petroiu, Cristina Trifanescu, Oana Gabriela Anghel, Rodica Maricela Gherghe, Mirela Diagnostics (Basel) Review (1) Background: Considering the importance that quantitative molecular imaging has gained and the need for objective and reproducible image interpretation, the aim of the present review is to emphasize the benefits of performing a quantitative interpretation of single photon emission computed tomography-computed tomography (SPECT-CT) studies compared to qualitative interpretation methods in bone lesion evaluations while suggesting new directions for research on this topic. (2) Methods: By conducting comprehensive literature research, we performed an analysis of published data regarding the use of quantitative and qualitative SPECT-CT in the evaluation of bone metastases. (3) Results: Several studies have evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of quantitative and qualitative SPECT-CT in differentiating between benign and metastatic bone lesions. We collected the sensitivity and specificity for both quantitative and qualitative SPECT-CT; their values ranged between 74–92% and 81–93% for quantitative bone SPECT-CT and between 60–100% and 41–100% for qualitative bone SPECT-CT. (4) Conclusions: Both qualitative and quantitative SPECT-CT present an increased potential for better differentiating between benign and metastatic bone lesions, with the latter offering additional objective information, thus increasing diagnostic accuracy and enabling the possibility of performing treatment response evaluation through accurate measurements. MDPI 2023-09-17 /pmc/articles/PMC10529093/ /pubmed/37761338 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics13182971 Text en © 2023 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Review
Mutuleanu, Mario-Demian
Paun, Diana Loreta
Lazar, Alexandra Maria
Petroiu, Cristina
Trifanescu, Oana Gabriela
Anghel, Rodica Maricela
Gherghe, Mirela
Quantitative vs. Qualitative SPECT-CT Diagnostic Accuracy in Bone Lesion Evaluation—A Review of the Literature
title Quantitative vs. Qualitative SPECT-CT Diagnostic Accuracy in Bone Lesion Evaluation—A Review of the Literature
title_full Quantitative vs. Qualitative SPECT-CT Diagnostic Accuracy in Bone Lesion Evaluation—A Review of the Literature
title_fullStr Quantitative vs. Qualitative SPECT-CT Diagnostic Accuracy in Bone Lesion Evaluation—A Review of the Literature
title_full_unstemmed Quantitative vs. Qualitative SPECT-CT Diagnostic Accuracy in Bone Lesion Evaluation—A Review of the Literature
title_short Quantitative vs. Qualitative SPECT-CT Diagnostic Accuracy in Bone Lesion Evaluation—A Review of the Literature
title_sort quantitative vs. qualitative spect-ct diagnostic accuracy in bone lesion evaluation—a review of the literature
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10529093/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37761338
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics13182971
work_keys_str_mv AT mutuleanumariodemian quantitativevsqualitativespectctdiagnosticaccuracyinbonelesionevaluationareviewoftheliterature
AT paundianaloreta quantitativevsqualitativespectctdiagnosticaccuracyinbonelesionevaluationareviewoftheliterature
AT lazaralexandramaria quantitativevsqualitativespectctdiagnosticaccuracyinbonelesionevaluationareviewoftheliterature
AT petroiucristina quantitativevsqualitativespectctdiagnosticaccuracyinbonelesionevaluationareviewoftheliterature
AT trifanescuoanagabriela quantitativevsqualitativespectctdiagnosticaccuracyinbonelesionevaluationareviewoftheliterature
AT anghelrodicamaricela quantitativevsqualitativespectctdiagnosticaccuracyinbonelesionevaluationareviewoftheliterature
AT gherghemirela quantitativevsqualitativespectctdiagnosticaccuracyinbonelesionevaluationareviewoftheliterature