Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 562

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Detection of bone metastases in breast cancer by 18FDG PET: differing metabolic activity in osteoblastic and osteolytic lesions.

Cook, G J, Houston, S, Rubens, R, Maisey, M N, Fogelman, I·1998·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

PURPOSE: 99mTechnetium methylene diphosphonate (99mTc MDP) bone scintigraphy is currently the method of choice for the detection of bone metastases, but 18F-fluoro-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography (18FDG PET) offers superior spatial resolution and improved sensitivity. We have compared 18FDG PET with 99mTc MDP bone scintigraphy in patients with skeletal metastases from breast cancer and have analyzed the data in subgroups based on radiographic characteristics of lesions. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twenty-three women with breast cancer and confirmed bone metastases were studied with both 99mTC MDP bone scintigraphy and 18FDG PET, and the number of lesions detected and the quantitation of uptake (standardized uptake values [SUVs]) of 18FDG in osteolytic and osteoblastic metastases were compared. Survival was compared for both lytic and blastic bone metastases and for patients with high and low accumulation of 18FDG. RESULTS: 18FDG PET detected more lesions than 99mTc MDP scintigraphy (mean, 14.1 and 7.8 lesions, respectively; P < .01). However, 18FDG detected fewer bone metastases compared with 99mTc MDP scintigraphy in a subgroup of patients with osteoblastic disease (P < .05). Higher SUVs were observed for osteolytic than osteoblastic disease (mean, 6.77 and 0.95, respectively; P < .01). Survival was lower in patients with osteolytic disease compared with the remainder (P=.01). A difference in survival was not found for those patients with high SUVs (> 3.6; P=.4). CONCLUSION: 18FDG PET is superior to bone scintigraphy in the detection of osteolytic breast cancer metastases, which led to a poorer prognosis. In contrast, osteoblastic metastases show lower metabolic activity and are frequently undetectable by PET. The biologic explanation for this observation remains to be elucidated.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1200/jco.1998.16.10.3375

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 562

Metadata

Authors
Cook, G. J., Houston, S., Rubens, R., Maisey, M. N., & Fogelman, I.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
1998-10
Volume
16
Issue
10
Pages
3375-3379
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W1852741248
Cited by
562
References
0
FWCI
10.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Detection of bone metastases in breast cancer by 18FDG PET: differing metabolic activity in osteoblastic and osteolytic lesions. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.1998.16.10.3375
The paper
Cook, G. J., Houston, S., Rubens, R., Maisey, M. N., & Fogelman, I. (1998). Detection of bone metastases in breast cancer by 18FDG PET: differing metabolic activity in osteoblastic and osteolytic lesions. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.1998.16.10.3375

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.