Cargando…
Differential diagnostic value of (18)F-FDG PET/CT in osteolytic lesions
BACKGROUND: Both bone metastases and multiple myeloma (MM) are malignant diseases that can appear osteolytic on imaging and are difficult to differentiate. While positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) has been demonstrated useful for the diagnosis of various bone lesions, correlat...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Elsevier
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7393436/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32760643 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbo.2020.100302 |
_version_ | 1783565045135835136 |
---|---|
author | Li, Xiaomeng Wu, Ning Zhang, Wenjie Liu, Ying Ming, Yue |
author_facet | Li, Xiaomeng Wu, Ning Zhang, Wenjie Liu, Ying Ming, Yue |
author_sort | Li, Xiaomeng |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Both bone metastases and multiple myeloma (MM) are malignant diseases that can appear osteolytic on imaging and are difficult to differentiate. While positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) has been demonstrated useful for the diagnosis of various bone lesions, correlations between PET/CT and histopathology and these diseases are unclear. This retrospective study investigated the optimal cutoff standardized uptake value (SUV) to differentiate MM and bone metastasis. METHODS: Patients with newly diagnosed osteolytic lesions (n = 344) and suspected malignancy underwent both fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET/CT and biopsy/surgery. FDG uptake and morphologic changes (e.g., soft tissue mass formation) were compared with pathological results. RESULTS: A total of 8896 osteolytic lesions were evaluated. The SUVmax of MM osteolytic lesions (1.6 ± 0.7) was significantly lower than that of bone metastases (5.5 ± 2.7; p = 0.000). The best cutoff SUVmax for differentiating MM and bone metastasis was 2.65 (sensitivity 86.1%, specificity 94.7%; p = 0.000). The SUVmax of bone lesions of soft tissue mass was higher than that for pure osteolytic lesions (p = 0.000). A greater percentage of patients with bone metastasis had a soft tissue mass (7%) than did patients with MM (2%). The mean SUVmax of bone metastases was 5.5 ± 2.7 (0.4–30.4); that of primary tumors was 7.5 ± 4.2 (1.0–28.5). The SUVmax of bone metastases significantly correlated with the SUVmax of primary tumors (r = 0.532; p = 0.000). CONCLUSIONS: FDG PET/CT is a valuable tool to differentiate osteolytic lesions. The best cutoff value of SUVmax for differentiating MM from bone metastasis is 2.65. The significant correlation between the SUVmax of bone metastasis and that of primary tumors is helpful for detecting primary tumors. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7393436 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | Elsevier |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-73934362020-08-04 Differential diagnostic value of (18)F-FDG PET/CT in osteolytic lesions Li, Xiaomeng Wu, Ning Zhang, Wenjie Liu, Ying Ming, Yue J Bone Oncol Research Article BACKGROUND: Both bone metastases and multiple myeloma (MM) are malignant diseases that can appear osteolytic on imaging and are difficult to differentiate. While positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) has been demonstrated useful for the diagnosis of various bone lesions, correlations between PET/CT and histopathology and these diseases are unclear. This retrospective study investigated the optimal cutoff standardized uptake value (SUV) to differentiate MM and bone metastasis. METHODS: Patients with newly diagnosed osteolytic lesions (n = 344) and suspected malignancy underwent both fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET/CT and biopsy/surgery. FDG uptake and morphologic changes (e.g., soft tissue mass formation) were compared with pathological results. RESULTS: A total of 8896 osteolytic lesions were evaluated. The SUVmax of MM osteolytic lesions (1.6 ± 0.7) was significantly lower than that of bone metastases (5.5 ± 2.7; p = 0.000). The best cutoff SUVmax for differentiating MM and bone metastasis was 2.65 (sensitivity 86.1%, specificity 94.7%; p = 0.000). The SUVmax of bone lesions of soft tissue mass was higher than that for pure osteolytic lesions (p = 0.000). A greater percentage of patients with bone metastasis had a soft tissue mass (7%) than did patients with MM (2%). The mean SUVmax of bone metastases was 5.5 ± 2.7 (0.4–30.4); that of primary tumors was 7.5 ± 4.2 (1.0–28.5). The SUVmax of bone metastases significantly correlated with the SUVmax of primary tumors (r = 0.532; p = 0.000). CONCLUSIONS: FDG PET/CT is a valuable tool to differentiate osteolytic lesions. The best cutoff value of SUVmax for differentiating MM from bone metastasis is 2.65. The significant correlation between the SUVmax of bone metastasis and that of primary tumors is helpful for detecting primary tumors. Elsevier 2020-07-13 /pmc/articles/PMC7393436/ /pubmed/32760643 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbo.2020.100302 Text en © 2020 Published by Elsevier GmbH. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Research Article Li, Xiaomeng Wu, Ning Zhang, Wenjie Liu, Ying Ming, Yue Differential diagnostic value of (18)F-FDG PET/CT in osteolytic lesions |
title | Differential diagnostic value of (18)F-FDG PET/CT in osteolytic lesions |
title_full | Differential diagnostic value of (18)F-FDG PET/CT in osteolytic lesions |
title_fullStr | Differential diagnostic value of (18)F-FDG PET/CT in osteolytic lesions |
title_full_unstemmed | Differential diagnostic value of (18)F-FDG PET/CT in osteolytic lesions |
title_short | Differential diagnostic value of (18)F-FDG PET/CT in osteolytic lesions |
title_sort | differential diagnostic value of (18)f-fdg pet/ct in osteolytic lesions |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7393436/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32760643 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbo.2020.100302 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT lixiaomeng differentialdiagnosticvalueof18ffdgpetctinosteolyticlesions AT wuning differentialdiagnosticvalueof18ffdgpetctinosteolyticlesions AT zhangwenjie differentialdiagnosticvalueof18ffdgpetctinosteolyticlesions AT liuying differentialdiagnosticvalueof18ffdgpetctinosteolyticlesions AT mingyue differentialdiagnosticvalueof18ffdgpetctinosteolyticlesions |