Clinical trial · Observational

Two Bed SPECT/CT Versus Planar Bone Scintigraphy in Detection of Osseous Metastases in Patients With Genitourinary Malignancies

NCT05597215CI-TRIAL-00061761unknownClinicalTrials.gov clinicaltrialsPublishedExplore in graph →

Summary

Brief summary (as posted)

The study aims to compare the diagnostic performance of planar bone scan and two bed SPECT/CT in detection of bone metastases in patients with urogenital cancer.

Conditions

Conditions (2)

Free-text conditions as registered, with the CancerIndex entity they were reconciled to and the match type.

Condition (as posted)	Mapped entity	Match	Confidence
Bone Metastases	—	UNRESOLVED	—
Urogenital Cancer	—	UNRESOLVED	—

Interventions

Interventions (1)

Intervention	Type	Mapped drug	Match
Tc-99m MDP and gamma camera	Radiation	—	UNRESOLVED

Design

Arms and outcomes

Arms (0)

[]

Primary outcomes (1)

measure
Comparison of diagnostic performance indices between two-bed SPECT/CT images and planar bone scans.
timeFrame
through study completion, an average of 2 years
description
Analysis and comparison of diagnostic performance indices between two-bed SPECT/CT images and planar bone scans for the detection of osseous metastases in genitourinary malignancies.

Secondary outcomes (2)

measure
Identification of patients' subgroups who might be best assessed upfront by two-bed SPECT/CT.
timeFrame
through study completion, an average of 2 years
measure
Identification of anatomical site which may be best assessed by SPECT/CT.
timeFrame
through study completion, an average of 2 years

Eligibility

Eligibility (as posted)

Sex: All
Minimum age: 18 Years

Show eligibility criteria text

Inclusion Criteria:

* Adult patients with urogenital cancer referred for bone scan.

Exclusion Criteria:

* Patients with claustrophobia.
* Patients refuse to do the scan.
* Patients with relative or absolute contraindications to do the scan (eg. pregnancy).

References

Publications (8)

BACKGROUNDZarrabi K, Paroya A, Wu S. Emerging therapeutic agents for genitourinary cancers. J Hematol Oncol. 2019 Sep 4;12(1):89. doi: 10.1186/s13045-019-0780-z. PMID 31484560
BACKGROUNDCosta WH, Jabboure G Netto, Cunha IW. Urological cancer related to familial syndromes. Int Braz J Urol. 2017 Mar-Apr;43(2):192-201. doi: 10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2016.0125. PMID 27819754
BACKGROUNDVan den Wyngaert T, Strobel K, Kampen WU, Kuwert T, van der Bruggen W, Mohan HK, Gnanasegaran G, Delgado-Bolton R, Weber WA, Beheshti M, Langsteger W, Giammarile F, Mottaghy FM, Paycha F; EANM Bone & Joint Committee and the Oncology Committee. The EANM practice guidelines for bone scintigraphy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016 Aug;43(9):1723-38. doi: 10.1007/s00259-016-3415-4. Epub 2016 Jun 4. PMID 27262701
BACKGROUNDRager 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
BACKGROUNDUmer M, Mohib Y, Atif M, Nazim M. Skeletal metastasis in renal cell carcinoma: A review. Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2018 Jan 31;27:9-16. doi: 10.1016/j.amsu.2018.01.002. eCollection 2018 Mar. PMID 29511536
BACKGROUNDShen G, Deng H, Hu S, Jia Z. Comparison of choline-PET/CT, MRI, SPECT, and bone scintigraphy in the diagnosis of bone metastases in patients with prostate cancer: a meta-analysis. Skeletal Radiol. 2014 Nov;43(11):1503-13. doi: 10.1007/s00256-014-1903-9. Epub 2014 May 20. PMID 24841276
BACKGROUNDde Leiris N, Leenhardt J, Boussat B, Montemagno C, Seiller A, Phan Sy O, Roux J, Laramas M, Verry C, Iriart C, Fiard G, Long JA, Descotes JL, Vuillez JP, Riou L, Djaileb L. Does whole-body bone SPECT/CT provide additional diagnostic information over [18F]-FCH PET/CT for the detection of bone metastases in the setting of prostate cancer biochemical recurrence? Cancer Imaging. 2020 Aug 12;20(1):58. doi: 10.1186/s40644-020-00333-y.