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