Cargando…

Differential diagnostic value of (18)F-FDG PET/CT for benign and malignant vertebral compression fractures: comparison with magnetic resonance imaging

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the differential diagnostic value of 2-[fluorine-18]-fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose ((18)F-FDG) positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) for benign and malignant vertebral compression fractures (VCFs), where the diagnostic accuracy of (...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: He, Xiaojiang, Zhao, Long, Guo, Xiuyu, Zhao, Liang, Wu, Jing, Huang, Jingxiong, Sun, Long, Xie, Chengrong, Chen, Haojun
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Dove Medical Press 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6055832/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30050321
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/CMAR.S168374
_version_ 1783341257899114496
author He, Xiaojiang
Zhao, Long
Guo, Xiuyu
Zhao, Liang
Wu, Jing
Huang, Jingxiong
Sun, Long
Xie, Chengrong
Chen, Haojun
author_facet He, Xiaojiang
Zhao, Long
Guo, Xiuyu
Zhao, Liang
Wu, Jing
Huang, Jingxiong
Sun, Long
Xie, Chengrong
Chen, Haojun
author_sort He, Xiaojiang
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the differential diagnostic value of 2-[fluorine-18]-fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose ((18)F-FDG) positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) for benign and malignant vertebral compression fractures (VCFs), where the diagnostic accuracy of (18)F-FDG PET/CT was compared with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between 2015 and 2017, we retrospectively evaluated 87 patients with 116 VCFs. MRI was performed in all the 87 patients, whereas (18)F-FDG PET/CT was executed in 51 patients. Three malignant features (convex posterior cortex, epidural mass formation, and pedicle enhancement) from MRI and the maximum standardized uptake value (SUV(max)) from (18)F-FDG PET/CT were evaluated in benign and malignant VCFs, respectively. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of MRI and (18)F-FDG PET/CT were compared in the differentiation of malignant from benign VCFs. RESULTS: The results of our investigation showed that the sensitivity and specificity for predicting malignant VCFs were 75.6% and 77.3% for convex posterior cortex, 82.9% and 813% for epidural mass formation, and 85.7% and 70.8% for pedicle enhancement. (18)F-FDG PET/CT demonstrated higher sensitivity (100%) but lower specificity (38.9%) as compared to MRI with regard to differentiation between benign and malignant VCFs. A significant difference in the SUV(max) values was observed between the benign and malignant fractures (2.9 ± 1.0 vs 5.0 ± 1.8, P < 0.01). Besides the value of SUV(max), it has been noticed that the FDG uptake pattern differed in malignant and benign fractures. CONCLUSION: Significant MRI findings such as convex posterior cortex, epidural mass formation, and pedicle enhancement are highly suggestive of malignancy. (18)F-FDG PET/CT reliably differentiated the fractures of malignant from benign based on both SUV(max) and (18)F-FDG uptake pattern. In a situation where MRI findings are not diagnostic, (18)F-FDG PET/CT provides additional information as it has high sensitivity and is semiquantitative.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6055832
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Dove Medical Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-60558322018-07-26 Differential diagnostic value of (18)F-FDG PET/CT for benign and malignant vertebral compression fractures: comparison with magnetic resonance imaging He, Xiaojiang Zhao, Long Guo, Xiuyu Zhao, Liang Wu, Jing Huang, Jingxiong Sun, Long Xie, Chengrong Chen, Haojun Cancer Manag Res Original Research PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the differential diagnostic value of 2-[fluorine-18]-fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose ((18)F-FDG) positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) for benign and malignant vertebral compression fractures (VCFs), where the diagnostic accuracy of (18)F-FDG PET/CT was compared with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between 2015 and 2017, we retrospectively evaluated 87 patients with 116 VCFs. MRI was performed in all the 87 patients, whereas (18)F-FDG PET/CT was executed in 51 patients. Three malignant features (convex posterior cortex, epidural mass formation, and pedicle enhancement) from MRI and the maximum standardized uptake value (SUV(max)) from (18)F-FDG PET/CT were evaluated in benign and malignant VCFs, respectively. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of MRI and (18)F-FDG PET/CT were compared in the differentiation of malignant from benign VCFs. RESULTS: The results of our investigation showed that the sensitivity and specificity for predicting malignant VCFs were 75.6% and 77.3% for convex posterior cortex, 82.9% and 813% for epidural mass formation, and 85.7% and 70.8% for pedicle enhancement. (18)F-FDG PET/CT demonstrated higher sensitivity (100%) but lower specificity (38.9%) as compared to MRI with regard to differentiation between benign and malignant VCFs. A significant difference in the SUV(max) values was observed between the benign and malignant fractures (2.9 ± 1.0 vs 5.0 ± 1.8, P < 0.01). Besides the value of SUV(max), it has been noticed that the FDG uptake pattern differed in malignant and benign fractures. CONCLUSION: Significant MRI findings such as convex posterior cortex, epidural mass formation, and pedicle enhancement are highly suggestive of malignancy. (18)F-FDG PET/CT reliably differentiated the fractures of malignant from benign based on both SUV(max) and (18)F-FDG uptake pattern. In a situation where MRI findings are not diagnostic, (18)F-FDG PET/CT provides additional information as it has high sensitivity and is semiquantitative. Dove Medical Press 2018-07-18 /pmc/articles/PMC6055832/ /pubmed/30050321 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/CMAR.S168374 Text en © 2018 He et al. This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed.
spellingShingle Original Research
He, Xiaojiang
Zhao, Long
Guo, Xiuyu
Zhao, Liang
Wu, Jing
Huang, Jingxiong
Sun, Long
Xie, Chengrong
Chen, Haojun
Differential diagnostic value of (18)F-FDG PET/CT for benign and malignant vertebral compression fractures: comparison with magnetic resonance imaging
title Differential diagnostic value of (18)F-FDG PET/CT for benign and malignant vertebral compression fractures: comparison with magnetic resonance imaging
title_full Differential diagnostic value of (18)F-FDG PET/CT for benign and malignant vertebral compression fractures: comparison with magnetic resonance imaging
title_fullStr Differential diagnostic value of (18)F-FDG PET/CT for benign and malignant vertebral compression fractures: comparison with magnetic resonance imaging
title_full_unstemmed Differential diagnostic value of (18)F-FDG PET/CT for benign and malignant vertebral compression fractures: comparison with magnetic resonance imaging
title_short Differential diagnostic value of (18)F-FDG PET/CT for benign and malignant vertebral compression fractures: comparison with magnetic resonance imaging
title_sort differential diagnostic value of (18)f-fdg pet/ct for benign and malignant vertebral compression fractures: comparison with magnetic resonance imaging
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6055832/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30050321
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/CMAR.S168374
work_keys_str_mv AT hexiaojiang differentialdiagnosticvalueof18ffdgpetctforbenignandmalignantvertebralcompressionfracturescomparisonwithmagneticresonanceimaging
AT zhaolong differentialdiagnosticvalueof18ffdgpetctforbenignandmalignantvertebralcompressionfracturescomparisonwithmagneticresonanceimaging
AT guoxiuyu differentialdiagnosticvalueof18ffdgpetctforbenignandmalignantvertebralcompressionfracturescomparisonwithmagneticresonanceimaging
AT zhaoliang differentialdiagnosticvalueof18ffdgpetctforbenignandmalignantvertebralcompressionfracturescomparisonwithmagneticresonanceimaging
AT wujing differentialdiagnosticvalueof18ffdgpetctforbenignandmalignantvertebralcompressionfracturescomparisonwithmagneticresonanceimaging
AT huangjingxiong differentialdiagnosticvalueof18ffdgpetctforbenignandmalignantvertebralcompressionfracturescomparisonwithmagneticresonanceimaging
AT sunlong differentialdiagnosticvalueof18ffdgpetctforbenignandmalignantvertebralcompressionfracturescomparisonwithmagneticresonanceimaging
AT xiechengrong differentialdiagnosticvalueof18ffdgpetctforbenignandmalignantvertebralcompressionfracturescomparisonwithmagneticresonanceimaging
AT chenhaojun differentialdiagnosticvalueof18ffdgpetctforbenignandmalignantvertebralcompressionfracturescomparisonwithmagneticresonanceimaging