
==== Front
Oncol Lett
Oncol Lett
OL
Oncology Letters
1792-1074
1792-1082
D.A. Spandidos

10.3892/ol.2024.14679
OL-28-5-14679
Articles
Diagnostic performance of 18F‑FDG PET/CT vs. 18F‑NaF PET/CT in breast cancer with bone metastases: An indirect comparative meta‑analysis
Hu Hongyu 1*
Hu Xianwen 1*
Liang Zhigang 1
Yang Wenbi 1
Li Song 1
Li Dandan 2
Cai Jiong 1
1 Department of Nuclear Medicine, The Affiliated Hospital of Zunyi Medical University, Zunyi, Guizhou 563003, P.R. China
2 Department of Gynecology, Zunyi Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Zunyi, Guizhou 563000, P.R. China
Correspondence to: Dr Jiong Cai, Department of Nuclear Medicine, The Affiliated Hospital of Zunyi Medical University, 149 Dalian Road, Huichuan, Zunyi, Guizhou 563003, P.R. China, E-mail: jiong_cai@163.com
* Contributed equally

11 2024
12 9 2024
12 9 2024
28 5 54626 3 2024
20 8 2024
Copyright: © 2024 Hu et al.
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
Breast cancer remains the leading cause of cancer-related death in women, with 5-year survival rates of as high as 90% for patients with early-stage breast cancer without metastasis, falling to 10% once bone metastases (BM) occur. Currently, there is no cure for breast cancer with BM. However, appropriate treatment can extend survival and improve patients' quality of life. Therefore, it is important to accurately evaluate the presence of BM in patients with breast cancer. The present meta-analysis evaluated the diagnostic performance of 18F-FDG and 18F-NaF as PET/CT tracers for breast cancer-associated BM. The present study aimed to compare the diagnostic performance of fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG) positron emission tomography/computed tomographs (PET/CT) and 18F-sodium fluoride (18F-NaF) PET/CT in patients with breast cancer and BM. The PubMed and Embase databases were searched for English literature on the diagnostic performance of 18F-FDG PET/CT and 18F-NaF PET/CT for breast cancer BM, and two authors independently extracted data. All included studies presented data that could be used to construct a 2×2 contingency table. The methodological quality of the selected studies was assessed using QUADAS-2, and forest plots were generated based on the sensitivity and specificity of 18F-FDG PET/CT and 18F-NaF PET/CT in the diagnosis of BM associated with breast cancer. A total of 14 articles were identified, including eight on the analysis of 18F-FDG PET/CT, five on 18F-NaF PET/CT and one on both. The studies on 18F-FDG PET/CT and 18F-NaF PET/CT included 530 and 270 patients, respectively. The pooled sensitivities were 0.88 [95% confidence interval (95% CI), 0.76–0.94] for 18F-FDG PET/CT and 0.98 (95% CI, 0.92–1.00) for 18F-NaF PET/CT, and the pooled specificities were 0.99 (95% CI, 0.97–1.00) and 0.91 (95% CI: 0.76–0.97), respectively. The area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve for both 18F-FDG PET/CT and 18F-NaF PET/CT was 0.99 (95% CI, 0.98–1.00). Lesion-based analysis using 18F-FDG PET/CT was performed for 909 lesions, with a sensitivity of 0.84 (95% CI, 0.67–1.00) and specificity of 1.00 (95% CI, 0.98–1.00). Compared with 18F-FDG PET/CT, 18F-NaF PET/CT showed higher sensitivity (98 vs. 88%) but lower specificity (91 vs. 99%), although the difference between methods was not statistically significant. In conclusion, the results of the present study indicated that 18F-NaF PET/CT and 18F-FDG PET/CT are both accurate methods for the detection of BM in patients with breast cancer, and have comparable diagnostic accuracy.

breast cancer
bone metastasis
18F-FDG PET/CT
18F-fluoride PET/CT
meta-analysis
National Natural Science Foundation of the People's Republic of China, NSFC82260353 This study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of the People's Republic of China, NSFC (grant no. 82260353).
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

According to the latest global cancer data, there are expected to be 2.3 million new cases of breast cancer worldwide by 2022, accounting for 11.6% of all cancer cases. In 157 countries, breast cancer is the most common cancer among women (1). The incidence of bone metastasis (BM) in patients with breast cancer is ~8%, but can reach 30–85% in cases of advanced breast cancer (2). Breast cancer remains the leading cause of cancer-associated deaths among women. It is estimated that 666,000 women succumbed to breast cancer in 2022 worldwide, with metastatic disease being the main cause of death rather than the primary cancer (1,3). BM can disrupt bone metabolism, leading to bone-related events such as bone pain, pathological fractures, spinal cord compression, and hypercalcemia, which markedly affect the quality of life of patients and can even be life-threatening (4). A previous study showed that BM is a crucial factor affecting the prognosis of patients with breast cancer. The 5-year survival rate for patients with early-stage breast cancer without metastasis is as high as 90%, but once BM occurs, the 5-year survival rate drops to 10% (5). There is currently no cure for patients with breast cancer and BM; however, appropriate treatment can prolong survival and improve the quality of life of the patient. Therefore, it is important to accurately assess whether patients with breast cancer have BM (6).

X-ray imaging is routinely used to screen for bone disease, but is not effective for early BM detection because it only identifies lesions after a 30–50% loss of calcium (7). Bone scans are imaging techniques with high sensitivity but low specificity for the detection of bone lesions (8). Therefore, more sensitive and accurate methods are necessary to detect the BM associated with breast cancer earlier so that intervention can be initiated sooner, and thereby improve the survival time of the patient. Positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) is an advanced diagnostic imaging technology that provides both metabolic information and precise anatomical localization. It has broad applications in the diagnosis, staging, location and treatment evaluation of various malignant tumors (9,10). Fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG) is a PET/CT tracer that is widely used for the diagnosis, staging and follow-up of patients with breast cancer due to its high diagnostic performance for lesions (11). A bone-specific radiotracer, 18F-sodium fluoride (18F-NaF), is effective in revealing changes in bone activity and has been widely used for the clinical detection of bone lesions (12,13). In patients with breast cancer and BM, metastases are predominantly osteolytic, but are osteogenic in 15–20% of cases (14–16). It has been shown that 18F-FDG is most sensitive in the detection of osteolytic metastases (17). Therefore, the present meta-analysis reviewed studies on the detection of BM in patients with breast cancer using PET/CT. The aim was to quantitatively evaluate and compare the diagnostic performance of 18F-FDG and 18F-NaF as PET/CT tracers in the detection of BM associated with breast cancer.

Patients and methods

Literature search to identify relevant studies

The present study was conducted in accordance with the Cochrane Collaboration's Systematic Review guidelines and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses requirements (18). The English literature on 18F-FDG PET/CT or 18F-NaF PET/CT in the detection of BM in breast cancer was retrieved from the PubMed (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed) and Embase (https://www.embase.com/) databases. A systematic search was performed used multiple keywords: (‘PET/CT’ OR ‘PET-CT’ OR ‘positron emission tomography/computed tomography’ OR ‘positron emission tomography-computed tomography’) AND (‘breast cancer’ OR ‘breast carcinoma’ OR ‘mammary cancer’ OR ‘breast tumor;) AND (‘bone metastasis’ OR ‘skeletal metastases’ OR ‘osseous metastasis’) AND (‘18F-fluorodeoxyglucose’ OR ‘18F-FDG’ OR ‘18F-NaF’ OR ‘18F-fluoride’). The publication period was limited from January 1, 2000 to January 31, 2022. The final list of articles was supplemented by cross-checking the reference lists of all retrieved articles.

Study selection and quality assessment

Two reviewers independently screened all titles and read abstracts. The full text of the selected articles was reviewed to determine eligibility. Data extraction and evaluation were performed independently by two authors, with disputes resolved by a third reviewer. Studies included in the meta-analysis met all of the following criteria: i) Patients of any age with breast cancer at any stage of disease, regardless of treatment status; ii) 18F-FDG PET/CT or 18F-NaF PET/CT used in the imaging and characterization of BM in patients with breast cancer; iii) histopathological findings or CT, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or clinical follow-up over 6 months included as reference standards; iv) a 2×2 contingency table could be constructed using directly extracted data or by the calculation of true positive (TP), false positive (FP), false negative (FN) and true negative (TN) values based on the sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative prediction values provided in the article. Exclusion criteria were: i) Studies with <10 patients with breast cancer; ii) studies where the PET/CT tracer was not 18F-FDG or 18F-NaF; iii) studies with multiple published data or subsets of data; iv) case reports, letters, editorials, reviews, animal studies, in vitro studies and studies without original data; v) studies presenting results from different imaging modalities jointly, or those in which it was not possible to distinguish between the test performance assessments of individual imaging modalities.

The QUADAS-2 tool was used for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy, covering four key areas: Patient selection, index tests, reference standards and the flow and timing of patients through the study (19).

Data extraction

Data extraction was performed independently by two investigators. For each relevant study, the following data were collected: i) Basic information such as the first author, publication year, country and sample size; ii) patient age, patient selection (continuous or non-continuous) and clinical background; iii) study design information; iv) examination results, including the numbers of TP, FP, TN and FN cases; v) parameters of the CT techniques used for 18F-FDG PET or 18F-NaF PET/CT. If there was a dispute between the reviewers, a third researcher evaluated all discordant items until a consensus was reached.

Statistical analysis

Stata software version 14.0 (StataCorp LP) was used to perform the statistical analysis. The diagnostic performance of 18F-FDG PET/CT and 18F-NaF PET/CT in the detection of BM in breast cancer was evaluated using specificity, sensitivity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) and summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curves based on TP, FP, FN, and TN values extracted from the included studies. The area under the curve (AUC) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Analyses were performed using the DerSimonan-Laird method, a random-effects model, to calculate weighted mean pooled sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR and DOR and their corresponding 95% CIs. Variability was assessed graphically by plotting metrics with 95% CIs for each study separately in a forest plot. Values of pooled PLR >10 and DOR >100 indicate that a positive test result helps to confirm the presence of BM, while pooled NLR values <0.1 indicate that a negative test result helps to exclude BM (20). Hierarchical logistic regression models were used to estimate the sensitivity and specificity of the included studies. For each study included in a forest plot, the corresponding 95% CIs were shown to graphically represent the index being measured. Heterogeneity among the studies was assessed using Cochran's Q test and Higgins I2 test (20). In Cochran's Q test, P<0.05 indicated the presence of heterogeneity. The degree of heterogeneity was assessed using the following criteria: An inconsistency index (I2) <50% indicated low heterogeneity; an I2 of 50–80% indicated moderate heterogeneity; and an I2 >80% indicated high heterogeneity. Subgroup analyses for 18F-FDG PET/CT were performed based on study sample size, mean patient age, study design type, attenuation correction, minimum scan slice thickness, imaging system supplier and whether the study was patient- or lesion-based. Publication bias was assessed using a funnel plot and Deek's asymmetry test for both 18F-FDG PET/CT and 18F-NaF PET/CT (21). The potential publication bias was estimated using Egger's quantitative test. A two-sample Z-test was used to evaluate the difference in diagnostic performance between the two methods for the detection of BM in breast cancer, with P<0.05 considered to indicate a statistically significant result.

Results

Eligible studies and quality assessment

A literature search identified357 potentially relevant articles. After the exclusion of 107 duplicates, the screening of titles and abstracts led to the exclusion of a further 211 articles for being reviews or guidelines (n=15), conference papers (n=20), animal studies (n=14) or on irrelevant topics (n=91), or due to the full text not being available (n=71). After reading the full texts of the remaining 39 articles, 25 articles were excluded due to not being published in English (n=1), lacking the data to construct a 2×2 contingency table (n=6), or not being relevant to the area of interest (n=18). Finally, 14 articles on the diagnostic performance of 18F-FDG or 18F-NaF PET/CT in breast cancer BM met the criteria for inclusion in the present meta-analysis. The identification and selection process for the studies is shown in Fig. 1.

A total of 14 articles (15,22–34) were included in the study. These comprised 8 studies on 18F-FDG PET/CT, 5 studies on 18F-NaF PET/CT, and 1 study on both, including a total of 919 patients and 2,054 lesions. The sample sizes in the studies ranged from 20 to 150 patients, with mean ages ranging from 43.8 to 64 years. All 14 articles were published between 2010 and 2019, and comprised 8 prospective studies and 6 retrospective studies. Among these, 3 studies included patients with breast cancer who had previously received treatment, 3 studies included patients newly diagnosed with breast cancer who were clinically suspected of having BM, and 8 studies included both treated and newly diagnosed patients. The baseline characteristics of each study are presented in Table I, and the PET/CT parameters used in each study are presented in Table SI. The quality of each study was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool. This assessment revealed that all studies met at least 5 of the 7 reference criteria, which included 4 items associated with the risk of bias, namely patient selection, index test, reference standard, and flow and timing, and 3 items associated with application concerns, namely patient selection, index test and reference standard; therefore, they were considered satisfactory (35). With regard to patient selection, 5 studies (22,24,25,29,32) were considered high-risk for reference standards, as only imaging and follow-up results were used as the reference standards. Additionally, one study had only a 2-month follow-up period (24), which was also considered high-risk. The risk of bias for flow and timing was unclear in all studies because the time interval between the index test and the reference standard was not reported. The results of the QUADAS-2 assessment are shown in Table SII.

Diagnostic accuracy

The 9 studies using the 18F-FDG PET/CT method had sensitivities ranging from 0.47 (95% CI, 0.37–0.58) to 1.0 (95% CI, 0.59–1.00) for the identification of breast cancer BM, and specificities ranging from 0.91 (95% CI, 0.82–0.96) to 1.0 (95% CI, 0.98–1.00). The pooled sensitivity and specificity of 18F-FDG PET/CT for the identification of BM derived from breast cancer were 0.88 (95% CI, 0.76–0.94) and 0.99 (95% CI, 0.97–1.00), respectively, as shown in Fig. 2. In addition, Cochran's Q test and Higgins I2 test indicated high heterogeneity in sensitivity (Q, 168.81, P≤0.01; I2, 93.48) and moderate heterogeneity in specificity (Q, 44.38, P≤0.01; I2, 75.21). The 6 studies describing the use of 18F-NaF PET/CT in the detection of breast cancer BM had sensitivities ranging from 0.91 (95% CI, 0.83–0.96) to 1.00 (95% CI, 0.84–1.00) and specificities ranging from 0.46 (95% CI, 0.34–0.59) to 1.00 (95% CI, 0.74–1.00). The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.98 (95% CI, 0.92–1.00) and 0.91 [95% CI, 0.76–0.97), respectively, as shown in Fig. 3. Cochran's Q test and Higgins I2 test also showed high heterogeneity in sensitivity (Q, 70.87, P≤0.01; I2, 90.12) and specificity (Q, 228.86, P≤0.01; I2, 96.94) among the studies. The pooled PLR and NLR for 18F-FDG PET/CT were 129.2 (95% CI, 27.1–616.4) and 0.13 (95% CI, 0.06–0.25), respectively. For 18F-NaF PET/CT, the pooled PLR and NLR were 10.9 (95% CI, 3.8–31.5) and 0.02 (95% CI, 0.01–0.1), respectively. The pooled DOR for 18F-FDG PET/CT in the diagnosis of breast cancer BM was 1,028 (95% CI, 244–4,330), while for 18F-NaF PET/CT, the pooled DOR was 489 (95% CI, 65–3,654), as shown in Table II. These data suggest that a positive result from FDG testing helps confirm the presence of BM, while a negative result from NaF testing helps to rule out BM. No significant difference in the DOR between 18F-FDG PET/CT and 18F-NaF PET/CT was detected. The area under the SROC curves for 18F-FDG PET/CT and 18F-NaF PET/CT were both 0.99 (95% CI, 0.98–1.00), as shown in Fig. 4.

Publication bias

Deek's funnel plots for publication bias in the studies on 18F-FDG PET/CT and 18F-NaF PET/CT are shown in Fig. 5. The statistical significance of the slope coefficient for 18F-FDG PET/CT (P=0.02) is suggestive of publication bias. However, the slope coefficient for 18F-NaF PET/CT lacked significance (P=0.37), indicating a low possibility of publication bias. When analyzed using Egger's test, both 18F-FDG PET/CT and 18F-NaF PET/CT exhibited no evidence of publication bias (P=0.187 and P=0.123, respectively; Fig. 6).

Exploration of heterogeneity

The results of the meta-regression analysis are shown in Table III. Eight studies reported patient-based results for the performance of 18F-FDG PET/CT in the diagnosis of breast cancer BM, with a sensitivity of 0.89 (95% CI, 0.80–0.99) and a specificity of 0.99 (95% CI, 0.98–1.00). Four studies, including 909 lesions, were lesion-based, with a sensitivity of 0.84 (95% CI, 0.67–1.00) and a specificity of 1.00 (95% CI, 0.98–1.00). The 7 studies in which the mean age of the patients was ≥50 years had a sensitivity of 0.88 (95% CI, 0.78–0.99) and specificity of 0.98 (95% CI, 0.96–1.00), while the 4 studies in which the mean age of the patients was <50 years had a sensitivity of 0.80 (95% CI, 0.60–0.99) and specificity of 1.00 (95% CI, 0.99–1.00). Patient-based analysis, mean patient age, slice thickness and imaging system supplier were not found to be responsible for the between-study heterogeneity (P>0.05). However, study design, sample size, attenuation correction value and the different imaging system supplier were identified as sources of heterogeneity in the diagnostic performance of 18F-FDG PET/CT in breast cancer BM (P<0.05). Due to the small number of studies on 18F-NaF PET/CT, it was not possible to perform a further subgroup analysis to identify the causes of heterogeneity.

Discussion

In the present meta-analysis, covering 919 patients and 2,054 lesions from 14 studies, the diagnostic performance of 18F-NaF PET/CT and 18F-FDG PET/CT was compared in the detection of breast cancer BM. The results indicate that 18F-NaF PET/CT is more sensitive than 18F-FDG PET/CT for the detection of BM in patients with breast cancer (98 vs. 88%), while 18F-FDG PET/CT is more specific than 18F-NaF PET/CT for this purpose (99 vs. 91%). However, these differences are not statistically significant, suggesting that both tracers have a good diagnostic performance, with both having an AUC of 0.99 (95% CI, 0.98–1.00) when used in PET/CT imaging for the detection of BM associated with breast cancer.

18F-FDG PET/CT is a sensitive molecular imaging method that is able to diagnose BM by detecting the increased uptake of FDG in metastatic cancer cells (36). Previous meta-analyses have shown that 18F-FDG PET/CT has high diagnostic performance in the identification of lymph node metastasis, staging, evaluation of treatment efficacy and assessment of the prognosis of patients with breast cancer after chemotherapy (37–41). The present meta-analysis, which included 9 studies on 18F-FDG PET/CT with 530 patients and 909 lesions, showed that 18F-FDG PET/CT has a good diagnostic performance. As an osteophytic tracer, 18F-NaF offers the advantageous features of high and rapid bone uptake accompanied by very rapid blood clearance. This results in a high bone-to-background ratio in a short time and allows areas of altered skeletal activity to be displayed, which makes it an increasingly favored agent for use in the detection of bone lesions (42). Previous studies have shown that 18F-NaF PET/CT can accurately detect BM in malignant tumors such as non-small cell lung cancer, breast cancer and prostate cancer. In particular, it is useful for assessing the extent of BM and aiding in treatment decisions, making it a good tool for the early and accurate detection of BM (15,43). The present meta-analysis, which included 6 studies on 18F-NaF PET/CT, showed that 18F-NaF PET/CT is more sensitive but less specific than 18F-FDG PET/CT in the detection of breast cancer BM. This lower specificity may be due to benign diseases also being able to cause new bone formation and increase NaF uptake, which can create false positives (26). Moreover, it is notable that in addition to showing high accuracy in the detection of BM, 18F-FDG is also highly accurate in the identification of distant organ tissue metastasis and lymph node metastasis (38,39). The results of the present meta-analysis indicate that 18F-FDG and 18F-NaF have comparable accuracy in the detection of BM in patients with breast cancer. Therefore, it is suggested that 18F-FDG should be considered first in clinical practice, and additional 18F-NaF examinations may not be necessary. Previous studies revealed that 18F-FDG PET/CT is more useful than bone imaging for the detection of osteolytic BM, and that it more accurately detects pure bone marrow metastases, particularly fast-growing lesions (41,44), while it is not recommended for detecting blastic BM (45). For BM with low 18F-FDG intake, 18F-NaF PET/CT has been shown to be a better choice due to greater sensitivity (46). Although the current study indicates that 18F-FDG and 18F-NaF have similar diagnostic value, the choice of imaging agent may differ according to the clinical situation.

The current meta-analysis revealed heterogeneity in pooled sensitivity and specificity for the studies on both 18F-FDG PET/CT and 18F-NaF PET/CT. Subgroup analysis showed that study design, sample size and the use of attenuation correction were factors contributing to heterogeneity among the studies. Specifically, the specificity of retrospective studies was lower than that of prospective studies, possibly due to inherent bias in patient selection. In addition, studies with a sample size of <50 patients showed higher specificity, which may be due to the fact that a small sample size means that the diversity of the sample may be reduced. The specificity of studies using attenuation correction was higher than that of those without, likely due to improved image quality and clearer visualization of the lesions after attenuation correction (44). The meta-regression results indicated that lesion-based analysis was more specific than patient-based analysis, and that the specificity of studies with a mean patient age <50 years was greater than that of studies with a higher mean patient age, but these differences were not statistically significant. Slice thickness was not found to contribute to the heterogeneity between studies observed in the present meta-analysis. Meta-regression analysis of 18F-NaF PET/CT was not possible because only 6 studies met the inclusion criteria, and some data were not available.

The main limitation of the present meta-analysis is the limited number of eligible studies, particularly those on 18F-NaF PET/CT. During data extraction, it was found that two articles had inconsistencies in the reported TP, FP, FN and TN values, and their sensitivity and specificity; therefore, these studies were excluded (45,46). Additionally, heterogeneity in the assessment of diagnostic accuracy among the studies on 18F-FDG PET/CT and 18F-NaF PET/CT limits the quality of the meta-analysis. Histopathological validation was not available for BM in all patients; instead, imaging-based reference standards such as CT and MRI were used, which may increase clinical heterogeneity. However, as it is impractical and unethical to obtain histological evidence for all skeletal lesions, non-invasive imaging results that are not rigorously validated by histological examination are considered acceptable. Although the present study compared the diagnostic performance of 18F-NaF PET/CT and 18F-FDG PET/CT in the detection of breast cancer BM, limited data may affect the estimates of diagnostic efficacy. However, the diagnostic performance of these imaging techniques provides a reference for clinical practice and helps to avoid the subjective interpretation of results.

In conclusion, the current study shows that 18F-NaF PET/CT and 18F-FDG PET/CT are accurate methods for the detection of BM in patients with breast cancer, and are comparable in diagnostic accuracy. Moreover, it contributes to a more comprehensive understanding of the use of 18F-FDG and 18F-NaF as PET/CT imaging agents for the detection of BM in patients diagnosed with breast cancer, and may serve as a point of reference for patient care.

Supplementary Material

Supporting Data

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Availability of data and materials

The data generated in the present study may be requested from the corresponding author.

Authors' contributions

JC, XH and HH conceived the study and designed the structure of the manuscript. XH and JC were involved in the methodology, data validation, writing, reviewing and editing the study, and project supervision/CMS validated the data, carried out investigation, wrote, reviewed and edited the manuscript, and completed project supervision. JC, ZL, WY, DL and SL were involved in the conceptualization of the study, data visualization, supervision and project administration. XH and JC confirm the authenticity of all the raw data. All authors read and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Patient consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Abbreviations

18F fluorine-18

BM bone metastasis

FDG fluorodeoxyglucose

NaF sodium fluoride

PET/CT positron emission tomography/computed tomography

TP true positive

FP false positive

FN false negative

TN true negative

PLR positive likelihood ratio

NLR negative likelihood ratio

DOR diagnostic odds ratio

SROC summary receiver operating characteristic

AUC area under the curve

CI confidence interval

Figure 1. Flow chart of the study selection process. 18F, fluorine-18; FDG, fluorodeoxyglucose; NaF, sodium fluoride; PET/CT, positron emission tomography/computed tomography.

Figure 2. Pooled sensitivity and specificity for fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography. Patient- and lesion-based analyses were separately included in the pooled analysis; *indicates lesion-based analysis. CI, confidence interval; df, degrees of freedom.

Figure 3. Pooled sensitivity and specificity for fluorine-18 positron emission tomography/computed tomography. Patient- and lesion-based analyses were separately included in the pooled analysis; *indicates lesion-based analysis. CI, confidence interval; df, degrees of freedom.

Figure 4. SROC curves of the diagnostic performance of different PET/CT imaging agents. SROC curves for (A) 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose PET/CT and (B) 18F-sodium fluoride PET/CT in the diagnosis of breast cancer bone metastases. SROC, summary receiver operating characteristic; PET/CT, positron emission tomography/computed tomography; 18F, fluorine-18; AUC, area under the curve; Sens, sensitivity; Spec, specificity.

Figure 5. Deeks' funnel plots for publication bias in the studies of different PET/CT imaging agents. Deeks' funnel plots for (A) 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose PET/CT and (B) 18F-sodium fluoride PET/CT with P-values for funnel plot asymmetry. PET/CT, positron emission tomography/computed tomography; 18F, fluorine-18; ESS, effective sample size.

Figure 6. Egger's publication bias plots for the studies of different PET/CT imaging agents. Egger's plots for (A) 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose PET/CT and (B) 18F-sodium fluoride PET/CT. PET/CT, positron emission tomography/computed tomography; 18F, fluorine-18; CI, confidence interval; SND, standard normal deviate.

Table I. Clinical characteristics and diagnostic results of the detection of bone metastases reported in each eligible study.

A, 18F-FDG PET/CT	
	
				Study design			Patient-based analysis	Lesion-based analysis			
First author, year	Country	No. of patients	No. of lesions		Clinical setting	Mean age (range), years			Reference standard	(Refs.)	
Prospective	Multicenter	Consecutive	TP	FP	FN	TN	TP	FP	FN	TN	
Koizumi et al, 2019	Japan	120	-	No	No	Yes	New +	-	34	8	1	77	-	-	-	-	HP follow-up >6 months	(30)	
							treated												
Caglar et al, 2016	Turkey	150	-	No	No	Yes	New + treated	52 (27–85)	84	1	1	64	-	-	-	-	HP; follow-up >10 months	(26)	
Hahn et al, 2011	Germany	28	129	No	No	Yes	New + treated	57.5 (35–78)	7	0	1	20	67	5	3	54	MRI follow-up	(22)	
Damle et al, 2013	India	72	-	Yes	No	Yes	Treated	52 (30–77)	25	1	9	37	-	-	-	-	HP; consensus from MRI/thin-slice CECT/skeletal radiograph findings	(15)	
Al-Muqbel, 2017	Jordan	35	-	No	No	Yes	Treated	48.1	25	0	9	1	-	-	-	-	Staging or follow-up 18F-FDG-PET/CT.	(25)	
Botsikas et al, 2019	Switzerland	80	175	Yes	No	Yes	New + treated	48	6	0	3	71	18	0	8	149	HP; follow-up >12 months	(34)	
Rager et al, 2018	Switzerland	25	109	No	Yes	Yes	New	55 (38–82)	10	0	2	13	43	0	48	18	Follow-up >21 months	(24)	
Heusner et al, 2010	Germany	20	-	Yes	No	Yes	New + treated	54.5 (25.4–78.2)	7	0	0	13	-	-	-	-	Consensus from MRI and bone scan	(28)	
Teke et al, 2015	Turkey	-	496	No	No	-	New	44.5 (28–81)	-	-	-	-	141	2	10	343	Follow-up >6 months	(32)	
	
B, 18F-NaF PET/CT	
	
				Study design			Patient-based analysis	Lesion-based analysis			
First author, year	Country	No. of patients	No. of lesions		Clinical setting	Mean age (range), years			Reference standard	(Refs.)	
Prospective	Multicenter	Consecutive	TP	FP	FN	TN	TP	FP	FN	TN	
	
Yoon et al, 2013	Korea	-	119	Yes	No	-	New + treated	55.6	-	-	-	-	49	36	3	31	HP; follow-up >12 months	(33)	
Broos et al, 2018	Netherlands	118	-	Yes	No	-	New +	64	50	6	2	60	-	-	-	-	Follow-up >6 months	(23)	
							treated												
Damle et al, 2013	India	72	-	Yes	No	Yes	Treated	52 (30–77)	34	11	0	27	-	-	-	-	HP; consensus from MRI/thin-slice CECT/skeletal radiograph findings	(15)	
Passah et al, 2017	India	-	199	Yes	No	-	New	43.8	-	-	-	-	178	0	0	21	99mTc-MDP skeletal scintigraphy	(29)	
Abikhzer et al, 2016	UK	41	284	Yes	No	-	New + treated	58 (30–75)	21	3	0	17	73	6	7	198	HP; follow-up >33 months	(31)	
Piccardo et al, 2012	Italy	39	662	Yes	-	-	Treated	60	27	0	0	12	491	11	51	109	Follow-up >12 months	(27)	
18F, fluorine-18; FDG, fluorodeoxyglucose; PET/CT, positron emission tomography/computed tomography; TP, true positive; FP, false positive; FM, false negative; TN, true negative; HP, histopathological; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; CECT, contrast-enhanced CT; 99mTc-MDP, technetium-99m methylene diphosphonate; NaF, sodium fluoride.

Table II. Summary of the diagnostic performance characteristics of 18F-FDG and 18F-NaF PET/CT in breast cancer bone metastases.

	18F-FDG PET/CT	18F-NaF PET/CT	
			
Parameter	Estimate	95% CI	Estimate	95% CI	
Sensitivity	0.88	0.76, 0.94	0.98	0.92, 1.00	
Specificity	0.99	0.97, 1.00	0.91	0.76, 0.97	
Positive likelihood ratio	129.2	27.1, 616.4	10.9	3.8, 31.5	
Negative likelihood ratio	0.13	0.06, 0.25	0.02	0.01, 0.1	
Diagnostic odds ratio	1,028	244, 4,330	489	65, 3,654	
AUC	0.99	0.98, 1.00	0.99	0.98, 1.00	
18F, fluorine-18; FDG, fluorodeoxyglucose; NaF, sodium fluoride; PET/CT, positron emission tomography/computed tomography; CI, confidence interval; AUC, area under the curve.

Table III. Meta-regression analysis results for fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positon emission tomography/computed tomography in the detection of bone metastases in patients with breast cancer.

Parameter	No. of studies	Sensitivity (95% CI)	P-value	Specificity	P-value	
Basis			0.88		0.21	
  Patient	8	0.89 (0.80–0.99)		0.99 (0.98–1.00)		
  Lesion	4	0.84 (0.67–1.00)		1.00 (0.98–1.00)		
Design			0.13		<0.01	
  Prospective	4	0.78 (0.55–1.00)		1.00 (0.99–1.00)		
  Retrospective	8	0.91 (0.83–0.98)		0.99 (0.97–1.00)		
Mean age, years			0.73		0.38	
  ≥50	7	0.88 (0.78–0.99)		0.98 (0.96–1.00)		
  <50	4	0.80 (0.60–0.99)		1.00 (0.99–1.00)		
Sample no.			0.65		<0.01	
  >50	4	0.91 (0.81–1.00)		0.98 (0.95–1.00)		
  ≤50	4	0.87 (0.71–1.00)		1.00 (1.00–1.00)		
Vendor			0.82		0.07	
  GE Healthcare	4	0.92 (0.81–1.00)		1.00 (0.99–1.00)		
  Siemens Healthineers	6	0.89 (0.77–1.00)		1.00 (0.99–1.00)		
AC			0.85		0.02	
  Yes	7	0.89 (0.78–1.00)		1.00 (0.98–1.00)		
  No	5	0.86 (0.72–1.00)		0.99 (0.98–1.00)		
Slice thickness, mm			0.55		0.08	
  ≥4	4	0.90 (0.76–1.00)		0.99 (0.95–1.00)		
  <4	4	0.83 (0.64–1.00)		0.99 (0.95–1.00)		
CI, confidence interval; AC, attenuation correction.
==== Refs
References

1 Bray F Laversanne M Sung H Ferlay J Siegel RL Soerjomataram I Jemal A Global cancer statistics 2022: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries CA Cancer J Clin 74 229 263 2024 10.3322/caac.21834 38572751
2 Cook GJ Houston S Rubens R Maisey MN Fogelman I Detection of bone metastases in breast cancer by 18FDG PET: differing metabolic activity in osteoblastic and osteolytic lesions J Clin Oncol 16 3375 3379 1998 10.1200/JCO.1998.16.10.3375 9779715
3 Zengel B Kilic M Tasli F Simsek C Karatas M Ozdemir O Cavdar D Durusoy R Bas KK Uslu A Breast cancer patients with isolated bone metastases and oligometastatic bone disease show different survival outcomes Sci Rep 11 20175 2021 10.1038/s41598-021-99726-7 34635748
4 Pantel K Hayes DF Disseminated breast tumour cells: Biological and clinical meaning Nat Rev Clin Oncol 15 129 131 2018 10.1038/nrclinonc.2017.174 29158590
5 Makhoul I Montgomery CO Gaddy D Suva LJ The best of both worlds-managing the cancer, saving the bone Nat Rev Endocrinol 12 29 42 2016 10.1038/nrendo.2015.185 26503674
6 Brook N Brook E Dharmarajan A Dass CR Chan A Breast cancer bone metastases: Pathogenesis and therapeutic targets Int J Biochem Cell Biol 96 63 78 2018 10.1016/j.biocel.2018.01.003 29309917
7 Weigelt B Peterse JL van't Veer LJ Breast cancer metastasis: Markers and models Nat Rev Cancer 5 591 602 2005 10.1038/nrc1670 16056258
8 Liu T Cheng T Xu W Yan WL Liu J Yang HL A meta-analysis of 18FDG-PET, MRI and bone scintigraphy for diagnosis of bone metastases in patients with breast cancer Skeletal Radiol 40 523 531 2011 10.1007/s00256-010-0963-8 20495798
9 Cook GJ Azad GK Goh V Imaging bone metastases in breast cancer: Staging and response assessment J Nucl Med 57 (Suppl 1) 27S 33S 2016 10.2967/jnumed.115.157867 26834098
10 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 16 e0260066 2021 10.1371/journal.pone.0260066 34793550
11 Garami Z Hascsi Z Varga J Dinya T Tanyi M Garai I Damjanovich L Galuska L The value of 18-FDG PET/CT in early-stage breast cancer compared to traditional diagnostic modalities with an emphasis on changes in disease stage designation and treatment plan Eur J Surg Oncol 38 31 37 2012 10.1016/j.ejso.2011.09.002 21937190
12 Bastawrous S Bhargava P Behnia F Djang DS Haseley DR Newer PET application with an old tracer: Role of 18F-NaF skeletal PET/CT in oncologic practice Radiographics 34 1295 1316 2014 10.1148/rg.345130061 25208282
13 Xiong Z Deng G Huang X Li X Xie X Wang J Shuang Z Wang X Bone metastasis pattern in initial metastatic breast cancer: A population-based study Cancer Manag Res 10 287 295 2018 10.2147/CMAR.S155524 29467583
14 Tsuzuki S Park SH Eber MR Peters CM Shiozawa Y Skeletal complications in cancer patients with bone metastases Int J Urol 23 825 832 2016 10.1111/iju.13170 27488133
15 Damle NA Bal C Bandopadhyaya GP Kumar L Kumar P Malhotra A Lata S The role of 18F-fluoride PET-CT in the detection of bone metastases in patients with breast, lung and prostate carcinoma: A comparison with FDG PET/CT and 99mTc-MDP bone scan Jpn J Radiol 31 262 269 2013 10.1007/s11604-013-0179-7 23377765
16 Al-Muqbel KM Yaghan RJ Al-Omari MH Rousan LA Dagher NM Al Bashir S Clinical relevance of 18F-FDG-negative osteoblastic metastatic bone lesions noted on PET/CT in breast cancer patients Nucl Med Commun 37 593 601 2016 10.1097/MNM.0000000000000481 26813990
17 Gaeta CM Vercher-Conejero JL Sher AC Kohan A Rubbert C Avril N Recurrent and metastatic breast cancer PET, PET/CT, PET/MRI: FDG and new biomarkers Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 57 352 366 2013 24322792
18 Liberati A Altman DG Tetzlaff J Mulrow C Gøtzsche PC Ioannidis JP Clarke M Devereaux PJ Kleijnen J Moher D The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: Explanation and elaboration BMJ 339 b2700 2009 10.1136/bmj.b2700 19622552
19 Whiting PF Rutjes AW Westwood ME Mallett S Deeks JJ Reitsma JB Leeflang MM Sterne JA Bossuyt PM QUADAS-2: A revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies Ann Intern Med 155 529 536 2011 10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00009 22007046
20 Deeks JJ Systematic reviews in health care: Systematic reviews of evaluations of diagnostic and screening tests BMJ 323 157 162 2001 10.1136/bmj.323.7305.157 11463691
21 Deeks JJ Macaskill P Irwig L The performance of tests of publication bias and other sample size effects in systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy was assessed J Clin Epidemiol 58 882 893 2005 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.01.016 16085191
22 Hahn S Heusner T Kümmel S Köninger A Nagarajah J Müller S Boy C Forsting M Bockisch A Antoch G Stahl A Comparison of FDG-PET/CT and bone scintigraphy for detection of bone metastases in breast cancer Acta Radiol 52 1009 1014 2011 10.1258/AR.2011.100507 21969709
23 Broos W van der Zant FM Wondergem M Knol R Accuracy of 18F-NaF PET/CT in bone metastasis detection and its effect on patient management in patients with breast carcinoma Nucl Med Commun 39 325 333 2018 10.1097/MNM.0000000000000807 29351123
24 Rager O Lee-Felker SA Tabouret-Viaud C Felker ER Poncet A Amzalag G Garibotto V Zaidi H Walter MA Accuracy of whole-body HDP SPECT/CT, FDG PET/CT, and their combination for detecting bone metastases in breast cancer: An intra-personal comparison Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 8 159 168 2018 30042868
25 Al-Muqbel KM Bone marrow metastasis is an early stage of bone metastasis in breast cancer detected clinically by F18-FDG-PET/CT imaging Biomed Res Int 2017 9852632 2017 10.1155/2017/9852632 28884133
26 Caglar M Kupik O Karabulut E Høilund-Carlsen PF Detection of bone metastases in breast cancer patients in the PET/CT era: Do we still need the bone scan Rev Esp Med Nucl Imagen Mol 35 3 11 2016 26514321
27 Piccardo A Altrinetti V Bacigalupo L Puntoni M Biscaldi E Gozza A Cabria M Iacozzi M Pasa A Morbelli S Detection of metastatic bone lesions in breast cancer patients: fused (18)F-Fluoride-PET/MDCT has higher accuracy than MDCT. Preliminary experience Eur J Radiol 81 2632 2638 2012 10.1016/j.ejrad.2011.12.020 22227259
28 Heusner TA Kuemmel S Koeninger A Hamami ME Hahn S Quinsten A Bockisch A Forsting M Lauenstein T Antoch G Stahl A Diagnostic value of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DWI) compared to FDG PET/CT for whole-body breast cancer staging Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 37 1077 1086 2010 10.1007/s00259-010-1399-z 20204355
29 Passah A Tripathi M Ballal S Yadav MP Kumar R Roesch F Meckel M Sarathi Chakraborty P Bal C Evaluation of bone-seeking novel radiotracer 68Ga-NO2AP-Bisphosphonate for the detection of skeletal metastases in carcinoma breast Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 44 41 49 2017 10.1007/s00259-016-3469-3 27455986
30 Koizumi M Motegi K Umeda T A novel biomarker, active whole skeletal total lesion glycolysis (WS-TLG), as a quantitative method to measure bone metastatic activity in breast cancer patients Ann Nucl Med 33 502 511 2019 10.1007/s12149-019-01359-4 30982124
31 Abikhzer G Srour S Fried G Drumea K Kozlener E Frenkel A Israel O Fogelman I Kagna O Prospective comparison of whole-body bone SPECT and sodium 18F-fluoride PET in the detection of bone metastases from breast cancer Nucl Med Commun 37 1160 1168 2016 10.1097/MNM.0000000000000568 27536906
32 Teke F Teke M Inal A Kaplan MA Kucukoner M Aksu R Urakci Z Tasdemir B Isikdogan A Significance of hormone receptor status in comparison of 18F-FDG-PET/CT and 99mTc-MDP bone scintigraphy for evaluating bone metastases in patients with breast cancer: Single center experience Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 16 387 391 2015 10.7314/APJCP.2015.16.1.387 25640386
33 Yoon SH Kim KS Kang SY Song HS Jo KS Choi BH Lee SJ Yoon JK An YS Usefulness of (18)F-fluoride PET/CT in breast cancer patients with osteosclerotic bone metastases Nucl Med Mol Imaging 47 27 35 2013 10.1007/s13139-012-0178-0 24895505
34 Botsikas D Bagetakos I Picarra M Da Cunha Afonso Barisits AC Boudabbous S Montet X Lam GT Mainta I Kalovidouri A Becker M What is the diagnostic performance of 18-FDG-PET/MR compared to PET/CT for the N- and M-staging of breast cancer Eur Radiol 29 1787 1798 2019 10.1007/s00330-018-5720-8 30267154
35 Hu X Li D Liang Z Liao Y Yang L Wang R Wang P Cai J Indirect comparison of the diagnostic performance of 18F-FDG PET/CT and MRI in differentiating benign and malignant ovarian or adnexal tumors: A systematic review and meta-analysis BMC Cancer 21 1080 2021 10.1186/s12885-021-08815-3 34615498
36 Evangelista L Panunzio A Polverosi R Ferretti A Chondrogiannis S Pomerri F Rubello D Muzzio PC Early bone marrow metastasis detection: The additional value of FDG-PET/CT vs. CT imaging Biomed Pharmacother 66 448 453 2012 10.1016/j.biopha.2012.06.004 22902054
37 Han S Choi JY Impact of 18F-FDG PET, PET/CT, and PET/MRI on staging and management as an initial staging modality in breast cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis Clin Nucl Med 46 271 282 2021 10.1097/RLU.0000000000003502 33651022
38 Zhang X Liu Y Luo H Zhang J PET/CT and MRI for identifying axillary lymph node metastases in breast cancer patients: Systematic review and meta-Analysis J Magn Reson Imaging 52 1840 1851 2020 10.1002/jmri.27246 32567090
39 Han S Choi JY Prognostic value of 18F-FDG PET and PET/CT for assessment of treatment response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis Breast Cancer Res 22 119 2020 10.1186/s13058-020-01350-2 33129348
40 Diao W Tian F Jia Z The prognostic value of SUVmax measuring on primary lesion and ALN by 18F-FDG PET or PET/CT in patients with breast cancer Eur J Radiol 105 1 7 2018 10.1016/j.ejrad.2018.05.014 30017264
41 Krüger S Buck AK Mottaghy FM Hasenkamp E Pauls S Schumann C Wibmer T Merk T Hombach V Reske SN Detection of bone metastases in patients with lung cancer: 99mTc-MDP planar bone scintigraphy, 18F-fluoride PET or 18F-FDG PET/CT Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 36 1807 1812 2009 10.1007/s00259-009-1181-2 19504092
42 Grant FD Fahey FH Packard AB Davis RT Alavi A Treves ST Skeletal PET with 18F-fluoride: Applying new technology to an old tracer J Nucl Med 49 68 78 2008 10.2967/jnumed.106.037200 18077529
43 Schirrmeister H Guhlmann A Kotzerke J Santjohanser C Kühn T Kreienberg R Messer P Nüssle K Elsner K Glatting G Early detection and accurate description of extent of metastatic bone disease in breast cancer with fluoride ion and positron emission tomography J Clin Oncol 17 2381 2389 1999 10.1200/JCO.1999.17.8.2381 10561300
44 Bebbington NA Zacho HD Holdgaard PC Lesion detection in 18F-sodium fluoride bone imaging: A comparison of attenuation-corrected versus nonattenuation-corrected PET reconstructions from modern PET-CT systems Nucl Med Commun 43 78 85 2022 10.1097/MNM.0000000000001487 34887371
45 Capitanio S Bongioanni F Piccardo A Campus C Gonella R Tixi L Naseri M Pennone M Altrinetti V Buschiazzo A Comparisons between glucose analogue 2-deoxy-2-((18)F)fluoro-D-glucose and (18)F-sodium fluoride positron emission tomography/computed tomography in breast cancer patients with bone lesions World J Radiol 8 200 209 2016 10.4329/wjr.v8.i2.200 26981229
46 Balci TA Koc ZP Komek H Bone scan or (18)f-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography; which modality better shows bone metastases of breast cancer Breast Care (Basel) 7 389 393 2012 10.1159/000341559 24647778
