Discrepancy between Tc-99m HMDP bone scan and F-18 FDG positron emission tomographic images in a patient with small cell lung cancer

Evaluation of Response to Therapy in a Patient with Lung Cancer: Correlation of Sclerotic Bone Lesions with F 18 FDG PET/CT and Bone Scintigraphy

A 64-year-old male patient with small cell lung cancer underwent Fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose (F 18 FDG) positron emission tomography (PET)/CT scan which revealed multiple F 18 FDG uptake in the spine, both humeri, ribs, pelvis and proximal long bones. There was no obvious lytic or sclerotic bone destruction accompanying these lesions on CT component of the study. After the patient received six courses of chemotherapy a repeat F 18 FDG-PET/CT was performed for evaluation of therapy response. The PET/CT showed the presence of multiple sclerotic lesions on CT without FDG uptake, corresponding to the bone lesions on the previous PET/CT scan. A concomitant Tc 99m Methylene diphosphonate (Tc 99m MDP) bone scintigraphy (BS) revealed no pathologically increased Tc 99m MDP uptake in the skeletal system. The FDG avid lesions in the skeletal system, which were not sclerotic initially, were transformed into FDG non-avid sclerotic lesions after chemotherapy. This was attributed to the direct effect of previous successful therapy for bone metastases, leading to the transformation of metabolically active disease, into blastic metabolically inactive metastases. In conclusion, a F 18 FDG negative bone lesion, which is sclerotic on CT, may represent post-treatment osteoblastic change rather than active tumor and BS might play a role in the discrimination of these two situations.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

None declared.

[18F-FDG PET and bone scintigraphy to search for bone metastasis of lung cancer]

Initial staging of lung cancer is essential to determine the appropriate therapeutic strategy. 18F-FDG PET is currently considered to be the gold standard. 99mTc bisphonate bone scintigraphy has long been indicated to search for bone metastases but it is not know whether this exploration adds further information after an 18F-FDG PET scan. In order to answer this question, two observers unaware of the clinical situation reread PET scans and bone scintigraphies and results compared with other imaging findings. Between February 2001 and March 2004, 39 patients (13F, 26M, 62 +/- 11 yr) underwent 18FFDG PET and bone scintigraphy (mean interval 17 +/- 17 d). When the two explorations agreed for the diagnosis of bone extension, we considered that bone scintigraphy added nothing. When the two explorations were in disagreement, the other imaging examinations, the clinical features and laboratory results during the five-month minimal follow-up were used to establish the reference diagnosis. 18F-FDG PET and bone scintigraphy were in agreement in 29 patients (74%) with positive results in 12 (31%) and negative results in 17 (43%). The two explorations were in disagreement in 10 patients (26%). Among the five disagreement cases with positive bone scintigraphy and no bone anomaly on the 18F-FDG PET, the anomalies were benign and explained by clinical features (3 patients) or were not confirmed by the clinical course and laboratory results (2 patients). Among the 5 cases with a bone anomaly on the 18F FDG PET, no metastasis could be identified during clinical follow-up. Bone scintigraphy does not enable identification of any bone metastases which were not recognized on the PET scan and therefore should not be performed systematically. Using a computed tomography scan with the 18F-FDG PET could further limit the contribution of bone scintigraphy by providing more precision concerning foci identified on the PET scan.