Correlation Study between Skeletal Scintigraphy and CT Scan in Diagnosing Bone Metastases
Affiliation(s)
Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Faculty of Applied Medical Science, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, KSA.
Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Faculty of Applied Medical Science, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, KSA.
ABSTRACT
A retrospective study for 98 patient suspected to bone scan at department of radiology take place, to find out which imaging modality is more sensitive between computed tomography (CT) and bone scan; age group of patient was from 1 year to 90 year, the highest Site of Metastases for both Bone scan & CT was at vertebra with 31%, and the positive finding was also 31% for bone scan, while for CT the highest Site of Metastases was at forearm with 34%, and the sensitivity for CT was 44%, and 56% for bone scan. The study recommends that patients with bone metastases are kindly recommended to bone scan investigation rather than CT scan.
A retrospective study for 98 patient suspected to bone scan at department of radiology take place, to find out which imaging modality is more sensitive between computed tomography (CT) and bone scan; age group of patient was from 1 year to 90 year, the highest Site of Metastases for both Bone scan & CT was at vertebra with 31%, and the positive finding was also 31% for bone scan, while for CT the highest Site of Metastases was at forearm with 34%, and the sensitivity for CT was 44%, and 56% for bone scan. The study recommends that patients with bone metastases are kindly recommended to bone scan investigation rather than CT scan.
Cite this paper
Bafaraj, S. , Algamdi, A. and Almorjan, A. (2014) Correlation Study between Skeletal Scintigraphy and CT Scan in Diagnosing Bone Metastases. Open Journal of Medical Imaging, 4, 178-186. doi: 10.4236/ojmi.2014.44025.
Bafaraj, S. , Algamdi, A. and Almorjan, A. (2014) Correlation Study between Skeletal Scintigraphy and CT Scan in Diagnosing Bone Metastases. Open Journal of Medical Imaging, 4, 178-186. doi: 10.4236/ojmi.2014.44025.
References
[1] Haywood, K. (2009) Skeletal System. Marshall Cavendish, New York, 5, 11-12, 17. [2] Ballard, C. (2009) Bones. Heinemann-Raintree, County Durham, 8, 13. [3] Contributors, W. (2006) Human Physiology. Blacksleet River, Philadelphia, 9. [4] Patel, P.R. (2010) Lecture Notes Radiology. Blackwell, Chichester, 203, 205, 207, 209, 211, 213, 215, 223, 225, 229, 299. [5] Elgazzar, A.H. (2004) Orthopedic Nuclear Medicine. Springer, Velag Berlin Heidelberg CmbH, 1, 16.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-18790-2_1 [6] Hsieh, J. (2003) Computed Tomography: Principles, Design, Artifacts, and Recent Advances. Spie, Bellingham, Wash., 26.
[1] Haywood, K. (2009) Skeletal System. Marshall Cavendish, New York, 5, 11-12, 17. [2] Ballard, C. (2009) Bones. Heinemann-Raintree, County Durham, 8, 13. [3] Contributors, W. (2006) Human Physiology. Blacksleet River, Philadelphia, 9. [4] Patel, P.R. (2010) Lecture Notes Radiology. Blackwell, Chichester, 203, 205, 207, 209, 211, 213, 215, 223, 225, 229, 299. [5] Elgazzar, A.H. (2004) Orthopedic Nuclear Medicine. Springer, Velag Berlin Heidelberg CmbH, 1, 16.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-18790-2_1 [6] Hsieh, J. (2003) Computed Tomography: Principles, Design, Artifacts, and Recent Advances. Spie, Bellingham, Wash., 26.