Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-xm8r8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-29T22:07:33.826Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 15 - Bone

from Part II - Oncologic applications

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 September 2012

Victor H. Gerbaudo
Affiliation:
Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School
Get access

Summary

Introduction

The vast majority of malignant bone lesions initiate as bone marrow deposits of malignant cells. As the lesion enlarges, the surrounding bone undergoes osteoclastic (resorptive) and osteoblastic (depositional) activity. Based on the balance between these two processes, lesions may appear radiographically, as lytic, sclerotic (blastic), or mixed (1–3).

Osteosarcoma is the most frequent primary bone malignancy in children and second in adults following multiple myeloma. The Ewing sarcoma family of tumors is the second most frequent primary bone malignancy in children and young adults (4). Bone metastases are the most common malignant bone tumor, with breast cancer being the leading primary tumor in women and prostate cancer in men, followed by lung cancer. The type of metastases and the incidence of metastatic skeletal spread depend on the type of malignancy and the disease stage, respectively (5).

The purpose of imaging is to identify malignant skeletal involvement as early as possible, to determine the extent of the disease, to evaluate the presence of clinically relevant complications (such as fractures or lesions which harbor risk for neurologic deficit), to monitor response to therapy, and at times, to guide biopsy (5, 6).

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Roodman, GD.Mechanisms of bone metastasisNew Engl J Med 2004 350 1655CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blake, GMPark-Holohan, SJCook, GJFogelman, I.Quantitative studies of bone with the use of 18F-fluoride and 99mTc-methylene diphosphonateSemin Nucl Med 2001 31 28CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Galasko, CS.Mechanisms of lytic and blastic metastatic disease of boneClin Orthop 1982 169 20Google Scholar
Hawkins, DSSchuetze, SMButrynski, JE[18F]Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography predicts outcome for Ewing sarcoma family of tumorsJ Clin Oncol 2005 23 8828CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Padhani, AHusband, J.Bone metastasesHusband, JESReznek, RHImaging in OncologyOxfordIsis Medical Media 1998 765Google Scholar
Clamp, ADanson, SNguyen, HCole, DClemons, M.Assessment of therapeutic response in patients with metastatic bone diseaseLancet Oncol 2004 5 607CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cook, GJFogelman, I.The role of positron emission tomography in the management of bone metastasesCancer 2000 88 29273.0.CO;2-V>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hamaoka, TMadewell, JEPodoloff, DAHortobagyi, GNUeno, NT.Bone imaging in metastatic breast cancerJ Clin Oncol 2004 22 2942CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Even-Sapir, E.Imaging of malignant bone involvement by morphologic, scintigraphic, and hybrid modalitiesJ Nucl Med 2005 46 1356Google ScholarPubMed
Nakamoto, YCohade, CTatsumi, MHammoud, DWahl, RL.CT appearance of bone metastases detected with FDG PET as part of the same PET/CT examinationRadiology 2005 237 627CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Metser, ULerman, HBlank, AMalignant involvement of the spine: assessment by 18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose PET/CTJ Nucl Med 2004 45 279Google Scholar
Van Goethem, JWvan den Hauwe, LOzsarlak, ODe Schepper, AMParizel, PM.Spinal tumorsEur J Radiol 2004 50 159CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Franzius, FSciuk, JDaldrup-Link, HEJurgens, HSchober, O.FDG-PET for detection of osseous metastases from malignant primary bone tumors: comparison with bone scintigraphyEur J Nucl Med 2000 27 1305CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liu, FYChang, JTWang, HM[18F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography is more sensitive than skeletal scintigraphy for detecting bone metastasis in endemic nasopharyngeal carcinoma at initial stagingJ Clin Oncol 2006 24 599CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krüger, SBuck, AKMottaghy, FMDetection of bone metastases in patients with lung cancer: 99mTc-MDP planar bone scintigraphy, 18F-fluoride PET or 18F-FDG PET/CTEur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2009 36 1807CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cook, GJHouston, SRubens, RMaisey, MNFogelman, I.Detection of bone metastases in breast cancer by 18FDG PET: differing metabolic activity in osteoblastic and osteolytic lesionsJ Clin Oncol 1998 16 3375CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burgman, POdonoghue, JAHumm, JLLing, CC.Hypoxia-induced increase in FDG uptake in MCF7 cellsJ Nucl Med 2001 42 170Google ScholarPubMed
Nakai, TOkuyama, CKubota, TPitfalls of FDG-PET for the diagnosis of osteoblastic bone metastases in patients with breast cancerEur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2005 32 1253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallowitsch, HJKresnik, EGasser, JF-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron-emission tomography in the diagnosis of tumor recurrence and metastases in the follow-up of patients with breast carcinoma: a comparison to conventional imagingInvest Radiol 2003 38 250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Du, YCullum, IIllidge, TMEll, PJ.Fusion of metabolic function and morphology: sequential [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron-emission tomography/computed tomography studies yield new insights into the natural history of bone metastases in breast cancerJ Clin Oncol 2007 25 3440CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sugawara, YFisher, SJZasadny, KRPreclinical and clinical studies of bone marrow uptake of fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose with or without granulocyte colony-stimulating factor during chemotherapyJ Clin Oncol 1998 16 173CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clamp, ADanson, SNguyen, HCole, DClemons, M.Assessment of therapeutic response in patients with metastatic bone diseaseLancet Oncol 2004 5 607CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kazama, TSwanston, NPodoloff, DAMacapinlac, HA.Effect of colony-stimulating factor and conventional- or high-dose chemotherapy on FDG uptake in bone marrowEur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2005 32 1406CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×