BETWEEN ETHICS AND UTILITY OF 99MTC HDP BONE SCAN IN CANCER. A RETROSPECTIVE STUDY ON 5,670 PATIENTS

https://www.doi.org/10.22551/MSJ.2021.01.05

  • IONESCU T. M. “Grigore T. Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iasi
  • CIOCOIU Manuela “Grigore T. Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iasi
  • JALLOUL W. “Grigore T. Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iasi
  • GRIEROSU Irena “Grigore T. Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iasi
  • OLARU A. “Socola” Institute of Psychiatry Iași, Romania
  • IACOB Roxana “Grigore T. Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iasi
  • STOLNICEANU Cati “Grigore T. Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iasi
  • STATESCU Ana-Maria “Sf. Spiridon” County Clinical Emergency Hospital Iași, Romania
  • GUTU M. “Grigore T. Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iasi
  • GHIZDOVAT V. “Grigore T. Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iasi
  • FERARU Laura “Grigore T. Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iasi
  • STEFANESCU Cipriana “Grigore T. Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iasi

Abstract

Aim: This paper aims to emphasize the importance of nuclear imaging for cancer patients evolution and personalized treatment. Material and method: A retrospective study comprising 5,670 patients, who performed bone scans, between 2003-2015, at the “Sf. Spiridon” County Clinical Emergency Hospital Iași Nuclear Medicine Laboratory. Studied parameters were demographic data, referral diagnosis, staging, tumor markers, bone metastases and patient follow-up. Results: Of all, 3,960 were oncological patients. They performed in evolution 3,846 bone scans, between two (21.01%) and 11 (0.05%) explorations. Patients’ age varied between 2 and 97 years (with two peaks, at 55 and 65). Gender distribution showed female (61.73%) over male (38.27%) predominance, especially in multiple scans (73.32%). For half of the patients the bone scan showed evolution (worsening), meaning the treatment was only partially effective and required modifications. Ethically, for these patients bone scan was irreplaceable. Its absence would have meant undergoing a partially/inefficient treatment, a reserved prognosis and a shorter survival period. The benefits outweigh the risks in terms of radiation exposure. Conclusions: Ethics in oncological nuclear medicine is complex, following the balance between risk and benefit, in the interest of a personalized management. As a result, ethically it is equivalent to maximizing the benefits of this minimally invasive functional investigation, scintigraphy, which is essential for treatment modulation, in order to improve the disease prognosis and increase the patients’ survival rate, for precision medicine in cancer.

Author Biographies

GRIEROSU Irena, “Grigore T. Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iasi

“Sf. Spiridon” County Clinical Emergency Hospital Iași, Romania

GUTU M., “Grigore T. Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iasi

“Sf. Spiridon” County Clinical Emergency Hospital Iași, Romania

STEFANESCU Cipriana, “Grigore T. Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iasi

“Sf. Spiridon” County Clinical Emergency Hospital Iași, Romania

References

1. Malone J, Zölzer F. Pragmatic ethical basis for radiation protection in diagnostic radiology. Br J Radiol 2016; 89: 1059.
2. Cho SG, Kim J, Song HC. Radiation Safety in Nuclear Medicine Procedures. Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2017; 51(1): 11-16.
3. Kalman C, Oughton D. Ethical considerations related to radiosensitivity and radio susceptibility. Int J Radiat Biol 2020; 96(3): 340-343.
4. Agrawal K, Meher BR, Padhy BM. Ethical Conundrum in Nuclear Medicine Research in India. Indian J Nucl Med 2019; 34(2): 83-85.
5. Bochud F, Cantone MC, Applegate K, et al. Ethical aspects in the use of radiation in medicine: update from ICRP Task Group 109. Ann ICRP 2020; 49(suppl 1): 143-153.
6. Fundamental Radiological Safety Rules approved by Order of the National Commission for the Control of Nuclear Activities President no. 14 / 24.01.2000 and published in the Official Gazette of Romania Part I no. 404 bis /29.08.2000 (NSR 01).
7. Castellucci P, Deandreis D, Krizsán ÁK, Mirzaei S, Prior J, Sattler B. European Nuclear Medicine Guide, 2020. In: Chapter 4.1 Radiolabelled bisphosphonates editor. EANM UEMS/EBNM, Viena, 2020, https://www.nucmed-guide.app/#!/home.
8. Ziessman H, O’Malley J, Thrall J. The Requisites. Nuclear Medicine fourth edition. 2014. In: Chapter 7 Skeletal Scintigraphy editor. Elsevier Saunders, Philadelphia, 2014, 98-130.
9. Ștefănescu C, Rusu V. De la fizica și biofizica radiofarmaceuticelor la imagini funcționale și moleculare. Iași: Editura Tehnopress, 2007.
10. Van den Wyngaert T, Strobel K, Kampen WU, et al. EANM practice guidelines for bone scintigra-phy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2016; 43(9): 1723-1738.
Published
2021-03-30
Section
INTERNAL MEDICINE - PEDIATRICS