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

Head-to-Head Comparison of 68Ga-DOTA-TATE and 68Ga-DOTA-JR11 PET/CT in Patients With Tumor-Induced Osteomalacia: A Prospective Study

Utility of 18F-AlF-NOTA-Octreotide PET/CT in the Localization of Tumor-Induced Osteomalacia

Diagnostic performance and impact on patient management of 68Ga-DOTA-TOC PET/CT for detecting osteomalacia-associated tumours

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

A prospective head-to-head comparison of 68 Ga-NOTA-3P-TATE-RGD and 68 Ga-DOTATATE in patients with gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumours

Tumour-Induced Osteomalacia—A Long Way to the Diagnosis Facilitated by [68Ga]Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT

Diagnostic accuracy of 99mTc-HYNIC-TOC SPECT/CT for detecting osteomalacia-associated tumors

Comparison of Cell Proliferation, Protein, and Glucose Metabolism in Musculoskeletal Tumors in a PET Study.

18F-AlF-NOTA-octreotide PET/CT in the localization of tumor-induced osteomalacia: case series and literature review

Comparison of [68Ga]Ga-DOTA-FAPI-04 and [18F] FDG PET/CT for the diagnosis of primary and metastatic lesions in patients with various types of cancer

Evaluation of 18F-AlF-NOTA-octreotide for imaging neuroendocrine neoplasms: comparison with 68Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT

Comparative evaluation of 68Ga-labelled TATEs: the impact of chelators on imaging

Response of osteogenic sarcoma to neoadjuvant therapy: evaluated by 18F-FDG-PET

Potential utility of [68Ga]DOTA-FAPI-04 as a broad-spectrum benign disease imaging agent—comparison with [18F]FDG and [99mTc]MDP

Simultaneous 68Ga-DOTA-TOC PET/MRI with gadoxetate disodium in patients with neuroendocrine tumor

Head-to-Head Comparison of [68Ga]Ga-NOTA-RM26 and [18F]FDG PET/CT in Patients with Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors: A Prospective Study

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

Head‑to‑head assessment of 68Ga-DOTA-FAPI-04 PET/CT vs 18 F-FDG PET/CT in fibroblastic tumors

Head-to-Head Comparison of SSTR Antagonist [68Ga]Ga-DATA5m-LM4 with SSTR Agonist [68Ga]Ga-DOTANOC PET/CT in Patients with Well Differentiated Gastroenteropancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors: A Prospective Imaging Study

Head-to-Head Comparison between [68Ga]Ga-DOTA.SA.FAPi and [18F]F-FDG PET/CT Imaging in Patients with Breast Cancer

68Ga/177lu-Labeled DOTA-TATE Shows Similar Imaging and Biodistribution in Neuroendocrine Tumor Model