-
恶性肿瘤骨转移发生率很高, 且严重影响肿瘤患者的生存质量。约50%的恶性肿瘤在整个病程中会发生远处转移, 而骨转移约占一半。目前, 放射性核素骨显像因灵敏度高, 已成为公认的、最常用的检查方法[1]。近年来, 18F-FDG PET的临床应用显示出更好的分辨率及诊断准确性, 18F-FDG PET是否将替代 99Tcm-MDP骨显像?临床医生应如何选择检查方法以便更全面、更完整地了解患者的骨骼受累情况?本综述将从显像原理和骨转移类型的角度对两者的临床诊断价值进行全面比较分析。
F-FDGPET与 99Tcm-MDP骨显像在诊断肿瘤骨转移中的比较
Comparasion of 18F-FDG PET and 99Tcm-MDP bone imaging in diagnosis of bone metastasis
-
摘要: 恶性肿瘤发生骨转移将大大影响患者的生存率、降低患者的生活质量。PET和骨显像作为两种常见的评估全身骨骼情况的显像模式,能早期发现骨转移,进行肿瘤分期,帮助临床治疗。通过两种显像的原理,可以分析不同骨质破坏的病理类型的诊断差异和侧重点。除PET和骨显像之外,MRI也是灵敏度很高的影像学检查方法之一。此外,新型PET示踪剂的出现和PETCT、SPECT-CT融合显像必将为核医学探测肿瘤骨转移提供新的价值。Abstract: Bone metastasis from malignant tumor will reduce the survival rate and life quality of patients.As the most two common procedures of evaluating the condition of whole-body skeletal system, both 18F-FDG PET and 99Tcm-MDP bone imaging can detect early metastasis and stage the cancer, thus helping the treatment.With the help of the theory of these two imaging methods, diagnostic differences and points of focus in different pathological types of bone destruction can be analyzed.Except PET and bone imaging, MRI is also an imaging method with high sensitivity.Moreover, PET-CT, SPECT-CT and some newly-discovered tracers will certainly add new value on detecting bone metastasis by methods of nuclear medecine.
-
Key words:
- Neplasm metastasis /
- Bone /
- Positron-emission tomography /
- Technetium Tc 99m medronata
-
[1] Ozülker T, Kücüköz Uzun A, Ozülker F, et al. Comparison of 18FFDG-PET/CT with 99mTc-MDP bone scintigraphy for the detection of bone metastases in cancer patients. Nucl Med Commun, 2010, 31(6): 597-603. doi: 10.1097/MNM.0b013e328338e909 [2] Liu T, Cheng T, Xu W. A meta-analysis of 18FDG-PET, MRI and bone scintigraphy for diagnosis of bone metastases in patients with breast cancer [J/OL]. Skeletal Radiol, 2010[2010-05-22]. http://www.springerlink.com/content/b400915kn767k582/fulltext.pdf. [3] Messiou C, Cook G, deSouza NM. Imaging metastatic bone disease from carcinoma of the prostate. Br J Cancer. 2009, 101(8): 1225-1232. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6605334 [4] Bury T, Barreto A, Daenen F, et al. Fluorine-18 deoxyglucose positron emission tomography for the detection of bone metastases in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Eur J Nucl Med, 1998, 25(9): 1244-1247. doi: 10.1007/s002590050291 [5] Cheran SK, Herndon JE 2nd, Patz EF Jr. Comparison of wholebody FDG-PET to bone scan for detection of bone metastases in patients with a new diagnosis of lung cancer. Lung Cancer, 2004, 44(3): 317-325. doi: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2003.11.008 [6] Stefan K, Andreas K, Buck Felix M, et al. Detection of bone metastases in patients with lung cancer 99mTc-MDP planar bone scintigraphy, 18F-fluoride PET or 18F-FDG PET/CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging, 2009, 36(11): 1807-1812. doi: 10.1007/s00259-009-1181-2 [7] Marom EM, McAdams HP, Erasmus J, et al. Staging non-small cell lung cancer with whole-body PET. Radiology, 1999, 212(3): 803-809. doi: 10.1148/radiology.212.3.r99se21803 [8] Buck AK, Herrmann K, Stargardt T, et al. Economic evaluation of PET and PET/CT in Oncology: evidence and methodologic approaches. J Nucl Med Technol, 2010, 38(1): 6-17. doi: 10.2967/jnmt.108.059584 [9] Cook GJ. Skeletal metastases: what is the future role for nuclear medicine?. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging, 2009, 36(11): 1807-1812. doi: 10.1007/s00259-009-1181-2 [10] Ito S, Kato K, Ikeda M, et al. Comparison of 18F-FDG PET and bone scintigraphy in detection of bone metastases of thyroid cancer. J Nucl Med, 2007, 48(6): 889-895. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.106.039479 [11] Hamaoka T, Madewell JE, Podoloff DA, et al. Bone imaginging metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol, 2004, 22(14): 2942-2953. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2004.08.181 [12] Goya M, Ishii G, Miyamoto S, et al. Prostate-specific antigen induces apoptosis of osteoclast precursors: potential role in osteoblastic bone metastases of prostate cancer. Prostate, 2006, 66(15): 1573-1584. doi: 10.1002/pros.20375 [13] Mundy GR. Metastasis to bone: causes, consequences and therapeutic opportunities. Nat Rev Cancer, 2002, 2(8): 584-593. doi: 10.1038/nrc867 [14] Uematsu T, Yuen S, Yukisawa S, et al. Comparison of FDG PET and SPECT for detection of bone metastases in breast cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2005, 184(4): 1266-1273. doi: 10.2214/ajr.184.4.01841266 [15] Ohta M, Tokuda Y, Suzuki Y, et al. Whole body PET for the evaluation of bony metastasesin patients with breast cancer: comparison with 99mTc-MDP bone scintigraphy. Nucl Med Commun, 2001, 22(8): 875-879. doi: 10.1097/00006231-200108000-00005 [16] Schirrmeister H, Guhlmann A, Elsner K, et al. Sensitivity in detecting osseous lesions depends on anatomic localization: planar bone scintigraphy versus 18F PET. J Nucl Med, 1999, 40(10): 1623-1629. [17] Metser U, Lerman H, Blank A, et al. Malignant involvement of the spine: assessment by 18F-FDG PET/CT. J Nucl Med, 2004, 45(2): 279-284. [18] Nakai T, Okuyama C, Kubota T, et al. Pitfalls of FDG-PET for the diagnosis of osteoblastic bone metastases in patients with breast cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging, 2005, 32(11): 1253-1258. doi: 10.1007/s00259-005-1842-8
计量
- 文章访问数: 1012
- HTML全文浏览量: 485
- PDF下载量: 1