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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |