The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Detection of bone metastases in breast cancer by 18FDG PET: differing metabolic activity in osteoblastic and osteolytic lesions.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
Blodgett, T. M., Meltzer, C. C., & Townsend, D. W. (2007) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.2422051113 · Cited by 387
FDG PET, PET/CT, and Breast Cancer Imaging
Rosen, E. L., Eubank, W. B., & Mankoff, D. A. (2007) · RadioGraphics · doi:10.1148/rg.27si075517 · Cited by 265
The contribution of PET/CT to improved patient management
Ell, P. J. (2006) · The British Journal of Radiology · doi:10.1259/bjr/18454286 · Cited by 128
Stanborough, R., Demertzis, J. L., Wessell, D. E., Lenchik, L., Ahlawat, S., Baker, J. C., Banks, J., Caracciolo, J. T., Garner, H. W., Hentz, C., et al. (2022) · Journal of the American College of Radiology · doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2022.09.015 · Cited by 17
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.