Abstract:Purpose: We aimed to compare the relative diagnostic efficacy of 68 Ga-Labeled DOTA-ibandronic acid ( 68 Ga-DOTA-IBA) to that of 18 F-NaF PET/CT as a mean of detecting bone metastases in patients with a range of cancer types Methods: This study retrospectively enrolled patients with bone metastases associated with various underlying malignancies. All patients underwent both 68 Ga-DOTA-IBA and 18 F-NaF PET/CT scans. Histopathology and follow-up CT or MRI imaging results were used as reference criteria, with a minimum follow-up period of 3 months. The maximum Standardized Uptake Value (SUVmax) and number of bone metastases were recorded. The Target-Background Ratio (TBR) was calculated along with the detection rate, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy of 68 Ga-DOTA-IBA and 18 F-NaF PET/CT imaging for overall and partial primary solid tumor bone metastases. Pearson chi-square test, McNemar test, and Kappa test was conducted to assess the correlation and consistency of diagnostic efficiency between the two imaging agents. Receiver Operating Characteristic curve (ROC curve) was performed to compare diagnostic performance and the area under the curve of the two imaging agents, determining optimal critical values for SUVmax and TBR in diagnosing bone metastasis. Differences in SUVmax and TBR values between the two imaging agents for detecting bone metastases were analyzed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. The difference was statistically significant when P < 0.05 Results: A total of 24 patients (13 women and 11 men) were included in this study, with a mean age of 52 (interquartile range, 49-64 years). The detection rate, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, accuracy, and AUC of 68 Ga-DOTA-IBA and 18 F-NaF PET/CT for bone metastases were 81%, 90%, 62%, 95%, 43%, 88%, 0.763, and 89%, 99%, 59%, 95%, 89%, 95%, 0.789, respectively. There was no significant difference between the two imaging methods (P < 0.01), and there was a significant correlation (X 2 =168.43, P < 0.001) and a strong consistency (Kappa=0.774,P < 0.001) between the diagnostic results of the two imaging agents. The SUVmax values of lesions measured by 68 Ga-DOTA-IBA and 18 F-NaF imaging in 22 patients with bone metastasis were 5.1 ± 5.4 and 19.6 ± 15.1, respectively, with statistically significant differences (P<0.05). The TBR values of the two imaging methods were 5.0 ± 5.0 and 6.7 ± 6.4, respectively, with statistically significant differences (P<0.05). The AUC of the SUVmax of 68 Ga-DOTA-IBA and 18 F-NaF curves were 0.824 and 0.862, respectively, with no statistically significant difference (P=0.490). No significant difference was found in the AUC of the TBR of 68 Ga-DOTA-IBA and 18 F-NaF (0.832 vs 0.890; P=0.248). Subgroup analysis showed significant correlation between the two imaging agents in the diagnosis of bone metastases in lung cancer and breast cancer, with consistent diagnostic results. However, in the diagnosis of bone metastases in prostate cancer, there was a significant difference (P<0.001) and lack of consistency (P=0.109) Conclusion: The diagnostic efficacy of 68 Ga-DOTA-IBA for bone metastasis lesions is comparable to that of 18 F-NaF. This finding holds significant clinical importance in terms of diagnosis of bone metastasis and selecting treatment plans for patients with malignant tumors

Diagnostic performance of 18 F‐FDG PET/CT vs. 18 F‐NaF PET/CT in breast cancer with bone metastases: An indirect comparative meta‐analysis

18F-FDG PET/CT for the Early Prediction of the Response Rate and Survival of Patients with Recurrent or Metastatic Breast Cancer.

Comparison of the diagnostic value of 18F-NaF PET/CT and 99mTc-MDP SPECT for bone metastases: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The diagnostic value of Na~(18)F PET/CT imaging in bone metastasis

Comparison of the relative diagnostic performance of 68Ga-DOTA-IBA and 18F-NaF for the detection of bone metastasis

A Meta-Analysis on the Diagnostic Performance of (18)F-FDG and (11)C-Methionine PET for Differentiating Brain Tumors.

Diagnostic Value of Fluorine 18 Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography/computed Tomography for the Detection of Metastases in Non–small‐cell Lung Cancer Patients

Head-to-head Comparison of [68Ga]Ga-FAPI PET and [18F]FDG PET in the Detection of Bone and Lymph Node Metastasis in Various Cancers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

68Ga-Labeled Fibroblast Activation Protein Inhibitor PET/ CT in the Clinical Diagnosis and Management of Breast Cancer: Comparison with [18F]FDG PET/CT

18F-FDG PET/CT and PET for evaluation of pathological response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer: a meta-analysis

18FDG PET-CT for diagnosis of distant metastases in breast cancer patients. A meta-analysis

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

Performance of [<SUP>18</SUP>F]FDG PET/CT versus FAPI PET/CT for lung cancer assessment: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Comparison of whole-body 18F-FDG PET/CT and PET/MRI for distant metastases in patients with malignant tumors: a meta-analysis

The Application of 68Ga-Somatostatin Analog and 18F-FDG PET/CT for Bone Metastasis from Neuroendocrine Tumors

Comparative study of 68Ga-DOTATATE and 18F-FDG PET/CT imaging in the detection of bone metastasis in neuroendocrine neoplasm

18F FDG PET/CT versus 99m Tc MDP Bone scintigraphy in imaging of metastatic osseous disease in breast cancer patients; Solving the discrepancies in light of serum markers

Head-to-head comparison of 18 F-FDG PET/CT and 18 F-FDG PET/MRI for lymph node metastasis staging in non-small cell lung cancer: a meta-analysis

Comparison of an Affibody-based Molecular Probe and 18F-FDG for Detecting HER2-Positive Breast Cancer at PET/CT

Comparison Between ~(18)F-Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography/computed Tomography(pet/ct) and Conventional Imagings in Detection of the Primary Tumor of Patients with Bone Metastasis

F-18 FDG PET for Evaluation of Bone Marrow Involvement in Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma