Quantitative Analysis of 99mTc-MDP SPECT-CT Data in Diagnosing Bone Metastases in Breast Cancer Patients

ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Nora Almuqbil, Sahar Mansour, Sadem Alnuwaiser, Rema bin Ghamlas, Methail Alduwaysan, Ruyuf Alghofaili, Sadeem Alotaibi, Nouf Alqahtani, Huda Saad

 
For citation: Almuqbil N, Mansour S, Alnuwaiser S, Ghamlas R, Alduwaysan M, Alghofaili R, Alotaibi S, Alqahtani N, Saad H. Quantitative Analysis of 99mTc-MDP SPECT-CT Data in Diagnosing Bone Metastases in Breast Cancer Patients . International Journal of Biomedicine. 2024;14(2):286-290. doi:10.21103/Article14(2)_OA8
 
Originally published June 5, 2024
 

Abstract: 

Background: In patients with advanced breast cancer (BC), distant metastases happen mainly in the skeleton. This study aimed to investigate the role of 99mTc-MDP SPECT/CT in the differential diagnosis of malignant bone lesions from degenerative benign bone diseases in female BC patients.
Methods and Results: The study included 39 female BC patients who underwent a baseline 99mTc-MDP SPECT/CT bone scans. After lesion detection, a quantitative radiotracer uptake analysis was conducted, and the standardized uptake value (SUVmax) was identified in each patient, and the data were then statistically analyzed. SUVmax values were significantly higher in BC patients with malignant metastasis than in patients with degenerative changes (33.04±15.3 vs. 13.25±5.46 g/mL, P<0.05). The SUVmax cut-off value of 22.75 g/mL (25th percentile) obtained through box plot analysis can help to discriminate metastatic from degenerative lesions. The logistic regression analysis indicated that the SUVmax was a significant predictor of metastatic BL (P<0.001, OR = 159.90, B=5.07).
Conclusion: Our results suggested that quantitative analysis of the 99mTc-MDP SPECT-CT data can improve diagnostic accuracy in differentiating malignant metastatic bone lesions from degenerative bone lesions in high-risk BC patients.

Keywords: 
breast cancer • metastatic bone lesions • 99mTc-MDP • SPECT/CT • quantitative analysis
References: 
  1. Abdelrazek MA, Nageb A, Barakat LA, Abouzid A, Elbaz R. BC-DETECT: combined detection of serum HE4 and TFF3 improves breast cancer diagnostic efficacy. Breast Cancer. 2022 May;29(3):507-515. doi: 10.1007/s12282-021-01328-8. Epub 2022 Jan 7. PMID: 34994942.
  2. Shrestha R, Paudel B, Panthi B, Gyawali B, Pandey A, Khanal S, Gyawali S. Breast Cancer among Cancer Patients Visiting the Department of Internal Medicine of a Tertiary Centre. JNMA J Nepal Med Assoc. 2024 Feb 24;62(270):64-67. doi: 10.31729/jnma.8466. PMID: 38409971; PMCID: PMC10924505.
  3. Siegel RL, Giaquinto AN, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2024. CA Cancer J Clin. 2024 Jan-Feb;74(1):12-49. doi: 10.3322/caac.21820. Epub 2024 Jan 17. Erratum in: CA Cancer J Clin. 2024 Mar-Apr;74(2):203. PMID: 38230766.
  4. Ravichandran K, Hamdan NA, Dyab AR. Population based survival of female breast cancer cases in Riyadh Region, Saudi Arabia. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2005 Jan-Mar;6(1):72-6. PMID: 15780037.
  5. AlRajhi B, Aljadani FF, Almarwan SR, Alzahrani AA, Sindi MHM, Kano A, Alzahrani RS, Baaqeel R. Breast Cancer Awareness Among Women in Saudi Arabia: A Systematic Review. Breast Cancer (Dove Med Press). 2023 Dec 14;15:913-924. doi: 10.2147/BCTT.S426079. PMID: 38111500; PMCID: PMC10726713.
  6. Hansen JA, Naghavi-Behzad M, Gerke O, Baun C, Falch K, Duvnjak S, Alavi A, Høilund-Carlsen PF, Hildebrandt MG. Diagnosis of bone metastases in breast cancer: Lesion-based sensitivity of dual-time-point FDG-PET/CT compared to low-dose CT and bone scintigraphy. PLoS One. 2021 Nov 18;16(11):e0260066. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0260066. PMID: 34793550; PMCID: PMC8601566.
  7. Abedi SM, Mardanshahi A, Zeanali R. Added diagnostic value of SPECT to evaluate bone metastases in breast cancer patients with normal whole body bone scan. Caspian J Intern Med. 2021 Apr;12(3):290-293. doi: 10.22088/cjim.12.3.290. PMID: 34221278; PMCID: PMC8223046.
  8. Gilkes DM. Implications of Hypoxia in Breast Cancer Metastasis to Bone. Int J Mol Sci. 2016 Sep 30;17(10):1669. doi: 10.3390/ijms17101669. PMID: 27706047; PMCID: PMC5085702.
  9. Fornetti J, Welm AL, Stewart SA. Understanding the Bone in Cancer Metastasis. J Bone Miner Res. 2018 Dec;33(12):2099-2113. doi: 10.1002/jbmr.3618. Epub 2018 Nov 26. PMID: 30476357.
  10. Brook N, Brook E, Dharmarajan A, Dass CR, Chan A. Breast cancer bone metastases: pathogenesis and therapeutic targets. Int J Biochem Cell Biol. 2018 Mar;96:63-78. doi: 10.1016/j.biocel.2018.01.003. Epub 2018 Jan 5. PMID: 29309917.
  11. Even-Sapir E. Imaging of malignant bone involvement by morphologic, scintigraphic, and hybrid modalities. J Nucl Med. 2005 Aug;46(8):1356-67. PMID: 16085595.
  12. Bombardieri E, Gianni L. The choice of the correct imaging modality in breast cancer management. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2004 Jun;31 Suppl 1:S179-86. doi: 10.1007/s00259-004-1541-x. Epub 2004 May 4. PMID: 15127242.
  13. Ben-Haim S, Israel O. Breast cancer: role of SPECT and PET in imaging bone metastases. Semin Nucl Med. 2009 Nov;39(6):408-15. doi: 10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2009.05.002. PMID: 19801220.
  14. Sharma R, Mondal A, Bhatnagar A, Chakravarty KL, Mishra P, Chopra MK, Rawat HS, Kashyap R. Differentiation of malignant and degenerative benign bone disease using Tc-99m MDP and Tc-99m citrate scintigraphy. Clin Nucl Med. 1998 Nov;23(11):758-63. doi: 10.1097/00003072-199811000-00008. PMID: 9814564.
  15. Cook GJ, Azad GK, Goh V. Imaging Bone Metastases in Breast Cancer: Staging and Response Assessment. J Nucl Med. 2016 Feb;57 Suppl 1:27S-33S. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.115.157867. PMID: 26834098.
  16. Agrawal K, Marafi F, Gnanasegaran G, Van der Wall H, Fogelman I. Pitfalls and Limitations of Radionuclide Planar and Hybrid Bone Imaging. Semin Nucl Med. 2015 Sep;45(5):347-72. doi: 10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2015.02.002. PMID: 26278850.
  17. Rager O, Nkoulou R, Exquis N, Garibotto V, Tabouret-Viaud C, Zaidi H, Amzalag G, Lee-Felker SA, Zilli T, Ratib O. Whole-Body SPECT/CT versus Planar Bone Scan with Targeted SPECT/CT for Metastatic Workup. Biomed Res Int. 2017;2017:7039406. doi: 10.1155/2017/7039406. Epub 2017 Jul 24. PMID: 28812019; PMCID: PMC5546128.
  18. Kannivelu A, Loke KS, Kok TY, Osmany SY, Ali SZ, Suat-Jin L, Ng DC. The role of PET/CT in the evaluation of skeletal metastases. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol. 2014 Apr;18(2):149-65. doi: 10.1055/s-0034-1371017. Epub 2014 Apr 8. PMID: 24715447.
  19. NIH. CIP Cancer Imaging Program. About the cancer imaging archive (TCIA) [Internet]. 2022 [cited 2023 May 18]. Available from: https://www.cancerimagingarchive.net/about-the-cancer-imaging-archive-tcia/.
  20. Kinahan PE, Fletcher JW. Positron emission tomography-computed tomography standardized uptake values in clinical practice and assessing response to therapy. Semin Ultrasound CT MR. 2010 Dec;31(6):496-505. doi: 10.1053/j.sult.2010.10.001. PMID: 21147377; PMCID: PMC3026294.
  21. 3D Slicer image computing platform. 2023; Available from: https://www.slicer.org/ 
  22. Krzywinski M, Altman N. Visualizing samples with box plots. Nat Methods. 2014 Feb;11(2):119-20. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.2813. PMID: 24645192.
  23. Wang Z, Cheng Y, Chen S, Shao H, Chen X, Wang Z, Wang Y, Zhou H, Chen T, Lin N, Ye Z. Novel prognostic nomograms for female patients with breast cancer and bone metastasis at presentation. Ann Transl Med. 2020 Mar;8(5):197. doi: 10.21037/atm.2020.01.37. PMID: 32309344; PMCID: PMC7154431.
  24. Gherghe M, Mutuleanu MD, Stanciu AE, Irimescu I, Lazar A, Bacinschi X, Anghel RM. Quantitative Analysis of SPECT-CT Data in Metastatic Breast Cancer Patients-The Clinical Significance. Cancers (Basel). 2022 Jan 6;14(2):273. doi: 10.3390/cancers14020273. PMID: 35053436; PMCID: PMC8773966.
  25. Koppula BR, Morton KA, Al-Dulaimi R, Fine GC, Damme NM, Brown RKJ. SPECT/CT in the Evaluation of Suspected Skeletal Pathology. Tomography. 2021 Oct 11;7(4):581-605. doi: 10.3390/tomography7040050. PMID: 34698290; PMCID: PMC8544734.
  26. Arvola S, Jambor I, Kuisma A, Kemppainen J, Kajander S, Seppänen M, Noponen T. Comparison of standardized uptake values between 99mTc-HDP SPECT/CT and 18F-NaF PET/CT in bone metastases of breast and prostate cancer. EJNMMI Res. 2019 Jan 24;9(1):6. doi: 10.1186/s13550-019-0475-z. PMID: 30680469; PMCID: PMC6346696.
  27. Mohd Rohani MF, Mat Nawi N, Shamim SE, Wan Sohaimi WF, Wan Zainon WMN, Musarudin M, Said MA, Hashim H. Maximum standardized uptake value from quantitative bone single-photon emission computed tomography/computed tomography in differentiating metastatic and degenerative joint disease of the spine in prostate cancer patients. Ann Nucl Med. 2020 Jan;34(1):39-48. doi: 10.1007/s12149-019-01410-4. Epub 2019 Oct 14. PMID: 31612417.
  28. Kuji I, Yamane T, Seto A, Yasumizu Y, Shirotake S, Oyama M. Skeletal standardized uptake values obtained by quantitative SPECT/CT as an osteoblastic biomarker for the discrimination of active bone metastasis in prostate cancer. Eur J Hybrid Imaging. 2017;1(1):2. doi: 10.1186/s41824-017-0006-y. Epub 2017 Oct 12. PMID: 29782587; PMCID: PMC5954671.
  29. Löfgren J, Mortensen J, Rasmussen SH, Madsen C, Loft A, Hansen AE, Oturai P, Jensen KE, Mørk ML, Reichkendler M, Højgaard L, Fischer BM. A Prospective Study Comparing 99mTc-Hydroxyethylene-Diphosphonate Planar Bone Scintigraphy and Whole-Body SPECT/CT with 18F-Fluoride PET/CT and 18F-Fluoride PET/MRI for Diagnosing Bone Metastases. J Nucl Med. 2017 Nov;58(11):1778-1785. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.116.189183. Epub 2017 Aug 10. PMID: 28798033.
  30. Jambor I, Kuisma A, Ramadan S, Huovinen R, Sandell M, Kajander S, Kemppainen J, Kauppila E, Auren J, Merisaari H, Saunavaara J, Noponen T, Minn H, Aronen HJ, Seppänen M. Prospective evaluation of planar bone scintigraphy, SPECT, SPECT/CT, 18F-NaF PET/CT and whole body 1.5T MRI, including DWI, for the detection of bone metastases in high risk breast and prostate cancer patients: SKELETA clinical trial. Acta Oncol. 2016;55(1):59-67. doi: 10.3109/0284186X.2015.1027411. Epub 2015 Apr 2. PMID: 25833330.
  31. Helyar V, Mohan HK, Barwick T, Livieratos L, Gnanasegaran G, Clarke SE, Fogelman I. The added value of multislice SPECT/CT in patients with equivocal bony metastasis from carcinoma of the prostate. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010 Apr;37(4):706-13. doi: 10.1007/s00259-009-1334-3. Epub 2009 Dec 17. PMID: 20016889.

Download Article
Received March 29, 2024.
Accepted May 15, 2024.
©2024 International Medical Research and Development Corporation.