Assessment of malignant skeletal disease: initial experience with 18F-fluoride PET/CT and comparison between 18F-fluoride PET and 18F-fluoride PET/CT.

UNLABELLED: 18F-fluoride PET/CT was performed on 44 oncologic patients to evaluate its diagnostic accuracy in assessing malignant osseous involvement and in differentiating malignant from benign bone lesions. METHODS: (18)F-fluoride PET and (18)F-fluoride PET/CT were interpreted separately. Lesions showing increased (18)F-fluoride uptake were categorized as malignant, benign, or inconclusive. The final diagnosis of lesions was based on histopathology, correlation with contemporaneous diagnostic CT or MRI, or clinical follow-up of at least 6 mo (mean, 10 +/- 3 mo). RESULTS: Increased (18)F-fluoride uptake was detected at 212 sites, including 111 malignant lesions, 89 benign lesions, and 12 lesions for which the final diagnosis could not be determined. In a lesion-based analysis, the sensitivity of PET alone in differentiating benign from malignant bone lesions was 72% when inconclusive lesions were considered false negative and 90% when inconclusive lesions were considered true positive. On PET/CT, 94 of 111 (85%) metastases presented as sites of increased uptake with corresponding lytic or sclerotic changes, and 16 of the 17 remaining metastases showed normal-appearing bone on CT, for an overall sensitivity of 99% for tumor detection. For only 1 metastasis was PET/CT misleading, suggesting the false diagnosis of a benign lesion. The specificity of PET/CT was significantly higher than that of PET alone (97% vs. 72%, P < 0.001). PET/CT identified benign abnormalities at the location exactly corresponding to the scintigraphic increased uptake for 85 of 89 (96%) benign lesions. In a patient-based analysis, the sensitivity of PET and PET/CT was 88% and 100%, respectively (P < 0.05) and the specificity was 56% and 88%, respectively (not statistically significant). Among the 12 patients referred for (18)F-fluoride assessment because of bone pain despite negative findings on (99m)Tc-methylene diphosphonate bone scintigraphy, (18)F-fluoride PET/CT suggested malignant bone involvement in all 4 patients with proven skeletal metastases, a potential benign cause in 4 of 7 patients who had no evidence of metastatic disease, and a soft-tissue tumor mass invading a sacral foramen in 1 patient. CONCLUSION: The results indicate that (18)F-fluoride PET/CT is both sensitive and specific for the detection of lytic and sclerotic malignant lesions. It accurately differentiated malignant from benign bone lesions and possibly assisted in identifying a potential cause for bone pain in oncologic patients. For most lesions, the anatomic data provided by the low-dose CT of the PET/CT study obviates the performance of full-dose diagnostic CT for correlation purposes.

The presentation of malignant tumours and pre-malignant lesions incidentally found on PET-CT.

PURPOSE: The purpose of the study was to determine the general and organ-specific presentation of incidental primary tumours on PET-CT. METHODS: PET-CT reports of 2,360 consecutive patients were reviewed and revealed 156 lesions suspicious for a new unexpected malignancy, in 151 patients. One hundred and twenty of these lesions, in 115 patients, were further assessed, by biopsy (n=84 patients) or by clinical and imaging follow-up (n=31 patients) for a mean of 17+/-4 months (range 12-25 months). RESULTS: Forty-four unexpected malignancies were found in 41 of the study patients (1.7%). Twenty-seven of the 44 incidental tumours were identified on the basis of their location, which was uncommon for metastasis of the known malignancy. Eight were detected as a result of either the difference in FDG avidity of the known malignancy and the incidental lesion or the presence of an incidental non-FDG-avid mass on the CT part of the study. Four tumours were synchronous carcinomas in patients with known colorectal malignancy, three were identified by virtue of the discordant response to treatment compared with the known primary tumour and two were detected as new sites of disease after a prolonged disease-free period. There was organ variability in the positive predictive values (PPV) of PET-CT findings for incidental primary malignancy or pre-malignant lesions: 62% for colonic lesions, 54% for lung lesions and 24% for thyroid lesions. CONCLUSION: Incidental primary tumours may be identified on PET-CT based on their location, FDG avidity, response to therapy and time of appearance. The PET and CT parts of the study appear to complement each other and assist in identification of these incidental tumours.