Copyright
©The Author(s) 2016.
World J Radiol. Feb 28, 2016; 8(2): 200-209
Published online Feb 28, 2016. doi: 10.4329/wjr.v8.i2.200
Published online Feb 28, 2016. doi: 10.4329/wjr.v8.i2.200
Table 1 Patient characteristics (n = 45)
| Demography | |
| Age (yr) | 61 ± 10 |
| Stage at diagnosis | |
| I | 5 |
| II | 21 |
| III | 14 |
| IV | 5 |
| Histology | |
| Ductal | 35 |
| Lobular | 8 |
| Other | 2 |
| Tumor receptor (+/-/unknown) | |
| Estrogen receptor | 39/2/4 |
| PgR | 29/11/5 |
| c-erb B2 | 14/24/7 |
| Site of metastatic disease other than bone | |
| Lung | 27% |
| Liver | 20% |
| Lymph nodes | 30% |
| Systemic therapy | |
| First-line | 81% |
| Second-line | 62% |
| Third-line | 36% |
| Bisphosphonates | 22% |
| Follow-up (mean 28 mo range 22-39) | |
| Patients with disease progression | 58% |
| Patients dead from disease | 30% |
Table 2 Patient-based analysis: Performance comparisons between 2-deoxy-2-(18F)fluoro-D-glucose and 18F-sodium positron emission tomography/computed tomography
| 18F-FDG | 18F-NaF | |
| Sensitivity (%) | 75.00 (55.10-88.00) | 91.67 (74.15-97.68) |
| Specificity (%) | 99.00 (84.54-100) | 76.19 (54.91-89.37) |
| Positive predictive value (%) | 99.00 (82.41-100) | 81.48 (63.3 91.82) |
| Negative predictive value (%) | 77.78 (59.24-89.39) | 88.89 (67.2-96.90) |
| Error rate (%) | 13.33 (6.26-26.18) | 15.56 (7.75-28.78) |
| Accuracy (%) | 86.67 (73.82-93.74) | 84.44 (71.22-92.25) |
| Youden's index | 0.75 (0.75-0.74) | 0.6786 (0.68-0.6718) |
Table 3 Sites and density characteristics showing different performance between 2-deoxy-2-(18F)fluoro-D-glucose and 18F-sodium positron emission tomography/computed tomography
| n | 18F-FDG | 18F-NaF | P | |
| Density | ||||
| Osteosclerotic | 89 | 0.005 | ||
| Sensitivity (%): | 42.86 (15.82-74.95) | 99.00 (64.57-99.00) | ||
| Specificity (%): | 97.00 (60.97-97.00) | 48.15 (35.39-61.15) | ||
| No lesion/bone marrow | 29 | 0.002 | ||
| Sensitivity(%): | 100.00 (60.97-100.00) | 48.15 (30.74-66.01) | ||
| Specificity(%): | 100.00 (34.24-100.00) | 100.00 (34.24-100.00) | ||
| Site | ||||
| Spine | 81 | 0.002 | ||
| Sensitivity (%): | 65.38 (51.80-76.85) | 100.00 (93.12-100.00) | ||
| Specificity (%): | 98.00 (88.30-98.00) | 13.45 (0.61-27.18) | ||
| Ribs | 118 | 0.04 | ||
| Sensitivity (%): | 83.96 (75.81-89.74) | 96.23 (90.70-98.52) | ||
| Specificity (%): | 78.37 (52.33-92.50) | 78.57 (52.41-92.43) |
- Citation: Capitanio S, Bongioanni F, Piccardo A, Campus C, Gonella R, Tixi L, Naseri M, Pennone M, Altrinetti V, Buschiazzo A, Bossert I, Fiz F, Bruno A, DeCensi A, Sambuceti G, Morbelli S. Comparisons between glucose analogue 2-deoxy-2-(18F)fluoro-D-glucose and 18F-sodium fluoride positron emission tomography/computed tomography in breast cancer patients with bone lesions. World J Radiol 2016; 8(2): 200-209
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1949-8470/full/v8/i2/200.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4329/wjr.v8.i2.200