BONY LESION ANALYSIS IN CARCINOMA PROSTATE: M.D.P. BONE SCAN VS. GALLIUM-68 PSMA-11 PET/CT
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.55519/JAMC-03-12049Keywords:
Keywords: Prostate carcinoma, bone metastases, PSMA-PET/CT, Bone scintigraphyAbstract
Background: Prostate cancer is the cause of the highest cancer-related death in males, 5-year survival is 31% in metastatic disease, and bone is a common site of metastases. Bone scintigraphy is a routinely used imaging modality for detecting skeletal metastases. It has variable sensitivity of 52–100%, whereas PSMA PET/CT scans have better sensitivity approaching 100%, so we determined the diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of planar M.D.P. (methylene diphosphonate) bone scintigraphy. Methods: This analytical cross-sectional study was conducted at the N.M. & molecular imaging department of S.I.U.T. Karachi. Bone scans and PSMA-PET/CT scans of all patients who were visited from Janury-2018 to January 2023 were reviewed and interpreted by a nuclear physician& radiologist team. Inclusion criteria were histopathology-proven prostate cancer patients who had a bone scan and PSMA PET/CT scan within one month and had not received any treatment between scans. Results: Among 70 scans, 38 (54.2%) were positive for bone lesions. A total of 18 (47%) patients had positive bony lesions on both PSMA-PET/CT and Bone scintigraphy. Among 38 bone lesions positive patients, in eleven patients, bone lesions were detected only on PET/CT scans, whereas nine were positive only on Bone scans. The mean S.U.V. max of all bony lesions was 19.15 (range 3.2–57.5). The bone scan's sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 62.07%, 78.05%, and 62.87%, respectively. Conclusion: PSMA-PET/CT is better than bone Scintigraphy for detecting skeletal metastases. However, outcomes of bone scintigraphy may be improved when Tc-PSMA receptor bone scintigraphy is used.References
Sekhoacha M, Riet K, Motloung P, Gumenku L, Adegoke A, Mashele S. Prostate Cancer Review: Genetics, Diagnosis, Treatment Options, and Alternative Approaches. Molecules 2022;27(17):5730.
American Cancer Society. Key Statistics for Prostate Cancer [Internet]. American Cancer Society [cited 2023 April 17]. Available from: https://www.cancer.org/cancer/prostate-cancer/about/key-statistics.html.
Cancer.net. Prostate Cancer: Statistics [internet]. American Society of clinical oncology [cited 2023 April 17]. Available from: https://www.cancer.net/cancer-types/prostate-cancer/statistics.
Idrees R, Fatima S, Abdul-Ghafar J, Raheem A, Ahmad Z. Cancer prevalence in Pakistan: meta-analysis of various published studies to determine variation in cancer figures resulting from marked population heterogeneity in different parts of the country. World J Surg Oncol 2018;16(1):1–1.
World Life Expectancy. World Health Rankings: Pakistan; Prostate Cancer [internet]. World Life Expectancy [cited 2023 May 31] Available from: https://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/pakistan-prostate-cancer.
Carlin BI, Andriole GL. The natural history, skeletal complications, and management of bone metastases in patients with prostate carcinoma. Cancer 2000;88(Suppl 12):2989–94.
Coleman RE. Metastatic bone disease: clinical features, pathophysiology and treatment strategies. Cancer Treat Rev 2001;27(3):165–76.
Langsteger W, Rezaee A, Pirich C, Beheshti M. 18F-NaF-PET/C.T. and 99mTc-MDP bone scintigraphy in the detection of bone metastases in prostate cancer. Semin Nucl Med 2016;46(6):491–501.
Turpin A, Girard E, Baillet C, Pasquier D, Olivier J, Villers A, et al. Imaging for metastasis in prostate cancer: a review of the literature. Front Oncol 2020;10:55.
Kim YJ, Kim YI. Therapeutic responses and survival effects of 177Lu-PSMA-617 radioligand therapy in metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer: a meta-analysis. Clin Nucl Med 2018;43(10):728–34.
Lengana T, Modiselle M, Lawal I, Boshomane G, Ebenhan T, Vorster M, et al. 68Ga-PSMA-PET/C.T. and bone scintigraphy imaging for staging of high-risk prostate cancer. J Nucl Med 2017;58(Suppl 1):757.
Fox JJ, Morris MJ, Larson SM, Schöder H, Scher HI. Developing imaging strategies for castration resistant prostate cancer. Acta Oncol 2011;50(Suppl 1):39–48.
Kikuchi A, Onoguchi M, Horikoshi H, Sjöstrand K, Edenbrandt L. Automated segmentation of the skeleton in whole-body bone scans: influence of difference in atlas. Nucl Med Commun 2012;33(9):947–53.
Schoonjans F. MedCalc. [Internet]. MedCalc’s Diagnostic test evaluation calculator. [cited 2023 April 26]. Available from: https://www.medcalc.org/calc/diagnostic_test.php
Niikura N, Hashimoto J, Kazama T, Koizumi J, Ogiya R, Terao M, et al. Diagnostic performance of 18 F-fluorodeoxyglucose PET/CT and bone scintigraphy in breast cancer patients with suspected bone metastasis. Breast Cancer 2016;23(4):662–7.
Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Briers E, Cumberbatch MG, De Santis M, et al. EAU-ESTRO-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol 2017;71(4):618–29.
Sartor O, Eisenberger M, Kattan MW, Tombal B, Lecouvet F. Unmet needs in the prediction and detection of metastases in prostate cancer. Oncologist 2013;18(5):549–57.
Lengana T, Lawal IO, Boshomane TG, Popoola GO, Mokoala KM, Moshokoa E, et al. 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT replacing bone scan in the initial staging of skeletal metastasis in prostate cancer: a fait accompli? Clin Genitourin Cancer 2018;16(5):392–401.
Pyka T, Okamoto S, Dahlbender M, Tauber R, Retz M, Heck M, et al. Comparison of bone scintigraphy and 68 Ga-PSMA P.E.T. for skeletal staging in prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2016;43(12):2114–21.
Wilson ZJ, Xu G, Tewari SO, Lu Y. Comparison of PSMA-based 18F-DCFPyL PET/CT and Tc-99m M.D.P. bone scan in detection of bone metastasis in prostate cancer. Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2023;13(1):1–10.
Additional Files
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Haider Ali, Syed Rashid Ul Amin, Abdul Hai, Noureen Nizar
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Journal of Ayub Medical College, Abbottabad is an OPEN ACCESS JOURNAL which means that all content is FREELY available without charge to all users whether registered with the journal or not. The work published by J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad is licensed and distributed under the creative commons License CC BY ND Attribution-NoDerivs. Material printed in this journal is OPEN to access, and are FREE for use in academic and research work with proper citation. J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad accepts only original material for publication with the understanding that except for abstracts, no part of the data has been published or will be submitted for publication elsewhere before appearing in J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad. The Editorial Board of J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad makes every effort to ensure the accuracy and authenticity of material printed in J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad. However, conclusions and statements expressed are views of the authors and do not reflect the opinion/policy of J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad or the Editorial Board.
USERS are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This is in accordance with the BOAI definition of open access.
AUTHORS retain the rights of free downloading/unlimited e-print of full text and sharing/disseminating the article without any restriction, by any means including twitter, scholarly collaboration networks such as ResearchGate, Academia.eu, and social media sites such as Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Scholar and any other professional or academic networking site.
