title: A comparative study of whole body DWIBS MRI versus bone scan for evaluating skeletal metastases.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Skeletal metastases in oncology patients are identified by Bone scan and/Positron Emission Tomography (PET) scan. But developing countries in the world still lack adequate numbers of these imaging facilities.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  Since Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) is widely available as compared to bone scan or PET scan; a double blind study was undertaken to see if whole body imaging with MRI can give an idea of skeletal metastases.
  
  
  METHODS
  Diffusion weighted whole body Magnetic Resonance Imaging with background body signal suppression (DWIBS) was performed using 1.5 Tesla (T) MRI on histopathologically proven cases of carcinoma of breast within two months of mastectomy and followed up after a year of surgery. Similarly bone scan was also performed in these patients.
  
  
  RESULTS
  DWIBS MRI demonstrated the presence and extent of bone metastases in 10 out of a total 18 patients included in study while bone scan could demonstrate them in only three cases. A highly significant difference between proportions of the skeletal metastases detected by whole body DWIBS-MRI than that by bone scan at one year follow-up. (i.e. p<0.01, z=2.66) was seen.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  DWIBS MRI scores high in demonstrating skeletal metastases. Further comparative studies are necessary to evaluate if DWIBS can replace bone scan or PET scan.
authors: Radio-diagnosis Department, RMC, PIMS(DU), Loni, Maharashtra, India.
authors: Sg
authors: S
authors: Gandage
authors: Sg
authors: S
authors: Kachewar
authors: Vd
authors: V
authors: Aironi
authors: Ad
authors: A
authors: Nagapurkar
keywords: Bone scan; Cancer imaging; DWIBS MRI; Onco Imaging; PET scan; Skeletal Metastases; Whole Body Imaging
references: Skeletal Radiol. 1990;19(2):113-6
references: 2321040
references: Ann Nucl Med. 2007 Jun;21(4):209-15
references: 17581719
references: Radiat Med. 2004 Jul-Aug;22(4):275-82
references: 15468951
references: Eur J Radiol. 2003 Mar;45(3):169-84
references: 12595101
references: Clin Radiol. 2000 Aug;55(8):653
references: 10964745
references: Acta Radiol. 2011 Sep 1;52(7):788
references: 21852438
references: AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001 Jul;177(1):229-36
references: 11418435
references: Eur Radiol. 2008 Sep;18(9):1937-52
references: 18446344
references: Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2011 Nov;23(9):632-45
references: 21530193
references: AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1997 Dec;169(6):1655-61
references: 9393186
references: Anticancer Res. 2000 May-Jun;20(3B):2189-92
references: 10928175
references: Clin Radiol. 2000 Aug;55(8):653; author reply 653-4
references: 10964746
references: Eur J Nucl Med. 2000 Sep;27(9):1305-11
references: 11007511