[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-381128-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":81,"doc-detail-381128-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":74,"head_meta":76,"extra_data":78,"updated_unix":80},105,"en","molecular-imaging-of-bone-metastasis-review-article","Molecular imaging of bone metastasis - Review Article","","Recent advances in molecularly targeted modular designs have enabled non-invasive, dynamic investigation of deep molecular interactions in vivo. Biomarker concentration and cellular interactions shift throughout pathological progression, requiring rapid adaptation of imaging agents and detection modalities for accurate readouts. Synergy between advanced instrumentation and molecular targeting molecules is improving precision, accuracy, and reproducibility. Small molecules, peptides, antibodies, and nanoparticles support both imaging and therapy, enabling theranostics. The review discusses molecular PET utility for prostate and breast bone metastases and multiple myeloma, comparing with traditional bone scans for complementary assessment of lytic- and blastic-bone lesions.",{"@graph":14,"@context":73},[15,34,56],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/healthcare/","Healthcare",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/molecular-imaging-of-bone-metastasis-review-article/381128/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/molecular-imaging-of-bone-metastasis-review-article/381128.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"Theodore","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-29","2026-09-24",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",10,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59,65,69],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"What is the main focus of this review?","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"The review highlights the utility of molecular positron emission tomography (PET) imaging for prostate and breast bone metastatic cancer and multiple myeloma, and compares it with traditionally used bone scans.","Answer",{"name":66,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":67},"Which cancer types and disease patterns are discussed?",{"text":68,"@type":64},"The article covers breast and prostate cancers with a propensity for bone metastasis, and multiple myeloma characterized by diffuse and focal spread with osteolytic lesions.",{"name":70,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":71},"How do molecular PET and bone scans relate for assessing bone lesions?",{"text":72,"@type":64},"The review states that molecular PET and bone scans can be synergistic or complementary for evaluating lytic- and blastic-bone lesions and for assessing treatment response and lesion detection.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":75,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":77,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":79,"site_id":7},381128,1790460557,{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":83},"success",[84,88,92,96,101,106,110,115,120,123,126],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":85,"show_sort_weight":86,"slug":87},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":89,"show_sort_weight":90,"slug":91},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":93,"show_sort_weight":94,"slug":95},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":97,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":98,"show_sort_weight":99,"slug":100},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":102,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":103,"show_sort_weight":104,"slug":105},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":107,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":108,"slug":109},7,40,"healthcare",{"id":111,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":112,"show_sort_weight":113,"slug":114},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":116,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":117,"show_sort_weight":118,"slug":119},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":118,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":121,"show_sort_weight":118,"slug":122},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":55,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":124,"show_sort_weight":55,"slug":125},"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":127,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":128,"show_sort_weight":97,"slug":129},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":131},{"doc_id":79,"user_id":132,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":107,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":55,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":116,"language":139,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":140,"faqs":141,"seo_title":142,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":143,"read_time":144},7971461740886,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_3d24733baf745e90a7e4bdd5f77d97b2","J BONE ONCOL 40 (2023) 100477  \nContents lists available at ScienceDirect  \nJournal of Bone Oncology  \njournal [homepage:](homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jbo)[ www.elsevier.com/locate/jbo](homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jbo)  \n| Review Article\u003Cbr>Molecular imaging of bone metastasis\u003Cbr>Eliana Khojasteha, Farrokh Dehdashtia, b, Monica Shokeen a, b, c, *\u003Cbr>a Edward Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA b Alvin J. Siteman Cancer Center, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USAc Department of Biomedical Engineering, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA |  |  | |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- |\n| A R T I C L E I N F O |  | A B S T R A C T |  |\n| Keywords: Molecular imaging Nuclear imaging Bone scintigraphy\u003Cbr>Bone metastasis Breast cancer Prostate cancer Multiple myeloma |  | Recent advances in molecularly targeted modular designs for in vivo imaging applications has thrusted open possibilities of investigating deep molecular interactions non-invasively and dynamically. The shifting landscape of biomarker concentration and cellular interactions throughout pathological progression requires quick adaptation of imaging agents and detection modalities for accurate readouts. The synergy of state of art instrumentation with molecularly targeted molecules is resulting in more precise, accurate and reproducible data sets, which is facilitating investigation of several novel questions. Small molecules, peptides, antibodies and nanoparticles are some of the commonly used molecular targeting vectors that can be applied for imaging as well as therapy. The field of theranostics, which encompasses joint application of therapy and imaging, is successfully leveraging the multifunctional use of these biomolecules [1,2].\u003Cbr>Sensitive detection of cancerous lesions and accurate assessment of treatment response has been transformative for patient management. Particularly, since bone metastasis is one of the dominant causes of morbidity and mortality in cancer patients, imaging can be hugely impactful in this patient population. The intent of this review is to highlight the utility of molecular positron emission tomography (PET) imaging in the context of prostate and breast bone metastatic cancer, and multiple myeloma. Furthermore, comparisons are drawn with traditionally utilized bone scans (skeletal scintigraphy). Both these modalities can be synergistic or complementary for assessing lytic- and blastic-bone lesions. |  |\n\n1. Introduction  \nBreast [3] and prostate [4] cancer has high propensity to metastasize to bone, which is a significant contributor of morbidity. Multiple myeloma is another cancer that originates in the bone marrow and causes multiple osteolytic lesions in the skeleton [5]. There is an unambiguous negative correlation between bone metastasis and survival [6]; necessitating efficient methods to detect bone metastasis in a timely manner. Advancements in molecular imaging approaches has improved accuracy of diagnosis, staging and therapy response [7–9]. Clinical imaging of bone, including the bone marrow utilizes a spectrum of imaging modalities such as: X-ray based radiological planar and tomographic (computed tomography (CT)) imaging, high-spatial resolution magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and nuclear imaging (single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) and positron emission tomography (PET)). Each of these approaches has its advantages and limitations. It is desirable that the imaging modality is sensitive, specific and able to  \ncapture the heterogeneous biology of the disease. Bone metastasis can lead to osteoblastic or osteolytic lesions [10], and multiple myeloma is characterized by diffuse as well as focal spread in the bone marrow, including lytic bone lesions. This review is specifically focused on molecular PET and bone scans for investigating bone metastasis in breast and prostate cancer, and multiple myeloma. Magne","cbCaiigb6qMXbDrR","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaiigb6qMXbDrR","pdf",5251552,"English","# Introduction\n# Discussion","[{\"question\":\"What is the main focus of this review?\",\"answer\":\"The review highlights the utility of molecular positron emission tomography (PET) imaging for prostate and breast bone metastatic cancer and multiple myeloma, and compares it with traditionally used bone scans.\"},{\"question\":\"Which cancer types and disease patterns are discussed?\",\"answer\":\"The article covers breast and prostate cancers with a propensity for bone metastasis, and multiple myeloma characterized by diffuse and focal spread with osteolytic lesions.\"},{\"question\":\"How do molecular PET and bone scans relate for assessing bone lesions?\",\"answer\":\"The review states that molecular PET and bone scans can be synergistic or complementary for evaluating lytic- and blastic-bone lesions and for assessing treatment response and lesion detection.\"}]","Molecular imaging of bone metastasis - Review Article | PDF",1790243723,23]