Download PDF
Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 2007; 11(4): 312-321
DOI: 10.1055/s-2008-1060334
© Thieme Medical Publishers

PET/CT in Malignant Bone Disease

Einat Even-Sapir1
  • 1Department of Nuclear Medicine, Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
07 March 2008 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

ABSTRACT

The most commonly used positron emission tomography (PET) tracer in clinical practice, fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG) is a glucose analogue that directly gains entry in excess into tumor cells. It is therefore sensitive for the detection of early bone marrow involvement prior to any identifiable bone changes. The introduction of 18F-FDG-PET in the imaging algorithms of various malignant diseases often obviates the need to perform a separate assessment of malignant bone involvement with conventional bone scintigraphy. After therapy, disappearance of 18F-FDG accumulation indicates success even when the bone remains morphologically abnormal. Novel hybrid systems composed of PET and computed tomography (CT) allow for acquisition of both modalities in the same clinical setting and the generation of fused functional-anatomical images. This technique has been found to improve the diagnostic accuracy of PET in detecting malignant bone involvement. This article discusses the role of PET/CT, primarily 18F-FDG PET/CT, in the assessment of malignant bone involvement in patients with primary bone sarcomas, common solid malignancies, lymphoma, and multiple myeloma.

KEYWORDS

PET - 18F-FDG - bone - metastasis - sarcoma

REFERENCES

  • 1 Padhani A, Husband J. Bone metastases. In: Husband JES, Reznek RH Imaging in Oncology. Oxford; Isis Medical Media 1998: 765-787
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Hamaoka T, Madewell J E, Podoloff D A, Hortobagyi G N, Ueno N T. Bone imaging in metastatic breast cancer.  J Clin Oncol. 2004;  22 2942-2953
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Fogelman I, Cook G, Israel O, Van der Wall H. Positron emission tomography and bone metastases.  Semin Nucl Med. 2005;  35 135-142
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Angtuaco E JC, Fassas A BT, Walker R, Sethi R H, Barlogie B. Multiple myeloma: clinical review and diagnostic imaging.  Radiology. 2004;  231 11-23
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Galasko C S. Mechanisms of lytic and blastic metastatic disease of bone.  Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1982;  169 20-27
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 del Regato J A. Pathways of metastatic spread of malignant tumors.  Semin Oncol. 1977;  4 33-38
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Morgan-Parkes J H. Metastases: mechanisms, pathways, and cascades.  AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1995;  164(5) 1075-1082
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Kricun M E. Red-yellow marrow conversion: its effect on the location of some solitary bone lesions.  Skeletal Radiol. 1985;  14(1) 10-19
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Roodman G D. Mechanisms of bone metastasis.  N Engl J Med. 2004;  350 1655-1664
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Blake G M, Park-Holohan S J, Cook G J, Fogelman I. Quantitative studies of bone with the use of 18F-fluoride and 99mTc-methylene diphosphonate.  Semin Nucl Med. 2001;  31 28-49
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Cook G J, Fogelman I. The role of positron emission tomography in skeletal disease.  Semin Nucl Med. 2001;  31 50-61
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Even-Sapir E. Imaging of malignant bone involvement by morphologic, scintigraphic, and hybrid modalities.  J Nucl Med. 2005;  46 1356-1367
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Aoki J, Watanabe H, Shinozaki T et al.. FDG PET of primary benign and malignant. bone tumors: standardized uptake value in 52 lesions.  Radiology. 2001;  219 774-777
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss A, Strauss L G, Heichel T et al.. The role of quantitative 18F-FDG PET studies for the differentiation of malignant and benign bone lesions.  J Nucl Med. 2002;  43 510-518
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Rohren E M, Turkington T G, Coleman R E. Clinical applications of PET in oncology.  Radiology. 2004;  231 305-332
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Cook G J, Fogelman I. The role of positron emission tomography in the management of bone metastases.  Cancer. 2000;  88 2927-2933
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Franzius C, Sciuk J, Daldrup-Link H E, Jurgens H, Schober O. FDG-PET for detection of osseous metastases from malignant primary bone tumours: comparison with bone scintigraphy.  Eur J Nucl Med. 2000;  27 1305-1311
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Liu F Y, Chang J T, Wang H M et al.. [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography is more sensitive than skeletal scintigraphy for detecting bone metastasis in endemic nasopharyngeal carcinoma at initial staging.  J Clin Oncol. 2006;  24(4) 599-604
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Cook G J, Houston S, Rubens R, Maisey M N, Fogelman I. Detection of bone metastases in breast cancer by 18FDG PET: differing metabolic activity in osteoblastic and osteolytic lesions.  J Clin Oncol. 1998;  16 3375-3379
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Burgman P, Odonoghue J A, Humm J L, Ling C C. Hypoxia-induced increase in FDG uptake in MCF7 cells.  J Nucl Med. 2001;  42 170-175
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Metser U, Lerman H, Blank A, Lievshitz G, Bokstein F, Even-Sapir E. Malignant involvement of the spine: assessment by 18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose PET/CT.  J Nucl Med. 2004;  45 279-284
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Schulte M, Brecht-Krauss D, Heymer B et al.. Grading of tumors and tumorlike lesions of bone: evaluation by FDG PET.  J Nucl Med. 2000;  41 1695-1701
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Folpe A L, Lyles R H, Sprouse J T, Conrad III E U, Eary J F. (F-18) fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography as a predictor of pathologic grade and other prognostic variables in bone and soft tissue sarcoma.  Clin Cancer Res. 2000;  6 1279-1287
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Gallowitsch H J, Kresnik E, Gasser J et al.. F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron-emission tomography in the diagnosis of tumor recurrence and metastases in the follow-up of patients with breast carcinoma: a comparison to conventional imaging.  Invest Radiol. 2003;  38 250-256
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Israel O, Goldberg A, Nachtigal A et al.. FDG-PET and CT patterns of bone metastases and their relationship to previously administered anti-cancer therapy.  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2006;  33(11) 1280-1284
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Sugawara Y, Fisher S J, Zasadny K R, Kison P V, Baker L H, Wahl R L. Preclinical and clinical studies of bone marrow uptake of fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose with or without granulocyte colony-stimulating factor during chemotherapy.  J Clin Oncol. 1998;  16 173-180
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Clamp A, Danson S, Nguyen H, Cole D, Clemons M. Assessment of therapeutic response in patients with metastatic bone disease.  Lancet Oncol. 2004;  5 607-616
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Kazama T, Swanston N, Podoloff D A, Macapinlac H A. Effect of colony-stimulating factor and conventional- or high-dose chemotherapy on FDG uptake in bone marrow.  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2005;  32 1406-1411
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Bar-Shalom R, Yefremov N, Guralnik L et al.. Clinical performance of PET/CT in evaluation of cancer: additional value for diagnostic imaging and patient management.  J Nucl Med. 2003;  44 1200-1209
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Kostakoglu L, Hardoff R, Mirtcheva R, Goldsmith S J. PET/CT fusion imaging in differentiating physiologic from pathologic FDG uptake.  Radiographics. 2004;  24 1411-1431
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Gayed I, Vu T, Johnson M, Macapinlac H, Podoloff D. Comparison of bone and 2-deoxy-2-[18F]fluoro-D-glucose positron emission tomography in the evaluation of bony metastases in lung cancer.  Mol Imaging Biol. 2003;  5 26-31
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Boogerd W, van der Sande J J, Kroger R. Early diagnosis and treatment of spinal epidural metastasis in breast cancer: a prospective study.  J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1992;  55 1188-1193
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Schirrmeister H, Guhlmann A, Kotzerke J et al.. Early detection and accurate description of extent of metastatic bone disease in breast cancer with fluoride ion and positron emission tomography.  J Clin Oncol. 1999;  17 2381-2389
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Even-Sapir E, Metser U, Flusser G et al.. Assessment of malignant skeletal disease: initial experience with 18F-fluoride PET/CT and comparison between 18F-fluoride PET and 18F-fluoride PET/CT.  J Nucl Med. 2004;  45 272-278
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Even-Sapir E, Metser U, Mishani E, Lievshitz G, Lerman H, Leibovitch I. The detection of bone metastases in patients with high- risk prostate cancer: 99mTc-MDP planar bone scintigraphy, single- and multi-field-of-view SPECT, 18F-fluoride PET, and 18F-fluoride PET/CT.  J Nucl Med. 2006;  47 287-297
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Brenner W, Bohuslavizki K H, Eary J F. PET imaging of osteosarcoma.  J Nucl Med. 2003;  44 930-942
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Hawkins D S, Schuetze S M, Butrynski J E et al.. [18F]Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography predicts outcome for Ewing sarcoma family of tumors.  J Clin Oncol. 2005;  23 8828-8834
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Folpe A L, Lyles R H, Sprouse J T, Conrad III E U, Eary J F. (F-18) fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography as a predictor of pathologic grade and other prognostic variables in bone and soft tissue sarcoma.  Clin Cancer Res. 2000;  6 1279-1287
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Eary J F, O'Sullivan F, Powitan Y et al.. Sarcoma tumor FDG uptake measured by PET and patient outcome: a retrospective analysis.  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2002;  29 1149-1154
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Tateishi U, Yamaguchi U, Seki K, Terauchi T, Arai Y, Hasegawa T. Glut-1 expression and enhanced glucose metabolism are associated with tumour grade in bone and soft tissue sarcomas: a prospective evaluation by [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography.  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2006;  33 683-691
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Pezeshk P, Sadow C A, Winalski C S, Lang P K, Ready J E, Carrino J A. Usefulness of 18F-FDG PET-directed skeletal biopsy for metastatic neoplasm.  Acad Radiol. 2006;  13 1011-1015
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Lodge M A, Lucas J D, Marsden P K et al.. A PET study of 18FDG uptake in soft tissue masses.  Eur J Nucl Med. 1999;  26 22-30
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Schleiermacher G, Peter M, Oberlin O et al.. Increased risk of systemic relapses associated with bone marrow micrometastasis and circulating tumor cells in localized Ewing tumor.  J Clin Oncol. 2003;  21 85-91
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Wuisman P, Enneking W F. Prognosis of patients who have osteosarcoma with skip metastasis.  J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1990;  72 60-68
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Cotterill S J, Ahrens S, Paulussen M et al.. Prognostic factors in Ewing's tumor of bone: analysis of 975 patients from the European Intergroup Cooperative Ewing's Sarcoma Study Group.  J Clin Oncol. 2000;  18 3108-3114
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Franzius C, Daldrup-Link H E, Sciuk J et al.. FDG-PET for detection of pulmonary metastases from malignant primary bone tumors: comparison with spiral CT.  Ann Oncol. 2001;  12 479-486
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Franzius C, Daldrup-Link H E, Wagner-Bohn A et al.. FDG-PET for detection of recurrences from malignant primary bone tumors: comparison with conventional imaging.  Ann Oncol. 2002;  13 157-160
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Paulussen M, Ahrens S, Burdach S et al.. Primary metastatic (stage IV) Ewing tumor: survival analysis of 171 patients from the EICESS studies. European Intergroup Cooperative Ewing Sarcoma Studies.  Ann Oncol. 1998;  9 275-281
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Daldrup-Link H E, Franzius C, Link T M et al.. Whole-body MR imaging for detection of bone metastases in children and young adults: comparison with skeletal scintigraphy and FDG PET.  AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001;  177 229-236
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Bielack S S, Kempf-Bielack B, Delling G et al.. Prognostic factors in high-grade osteosarcoma of the extremities or trunk: an analysis of 1,702 patients treated on neoadjuvant cooperative osteosarcoma study group protocols.  J Clin Oncol. 2002;  20 776-790
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Abdel-Dayem H M. The role of nuclear medicine in primary bone and soft tissue tumors.  Semin Nucl Med. 1997;  27 355-363
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Jones D N, McCowage G B, Sostman H D et al.. Monitoring of neoadjuvant therapy response of soft-tissue and musculoskeletal sarcoma using fluorine-18-FDG PET.  J Nucl Med. 1996;  37 1438-1444
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Hawkins D S, Rajendran J G, Conrad III E U, Bruckner J D, Eary J F. Evaluation of chemotherapy response in pediatric bone sarcomas by [F-18]-fluorodeoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography.  Cancer. 2002;  94 3277-3284
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Schulte M, Brecht-Krauss D, Werner M et al.. Evaluation of neoadjuvant therapy response of osteogenic sarcoma using FDG PET.  J Nucl Med. 1999;  40 1637-1643
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Lucas J D, O'Doherty M J, Wong J C et al.. Evaluation of fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in the management of soft-tissue sarcomas.  J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1998;  80 441-447
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 56 Bury T, Barreto A, Daenen F, Barthelemy N, Ghaye B, Rigo P. Fluorine- 18 deoxyglucose positron emission tomography for the detection of bone metastases in patients with non-small cell lung cancer.  Eur J Nucl Med. 1998;  25 1244-1247
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 57 Kato H, Miyazaki T, Nakajima M. 657 Comparison between whole-body positron emission tomography and bone scintigraphy in evaluating bony metastases of esophageal carcinomas.  Anticancer Res. 2005;  25 4439-4444
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 58 Yeh K A, Fortunato L, Ridge J A, Hoffman J P, Eisenberg B L, Sigurdson E R. Routine bone scanning in patients with T1 and T2 breast cancer: a waste of money.  Ann Surg Oncol. 1995;  2 319-324
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 59 Schirrmeister H, Kuhn T, Guhlmann A et al.. Fluorine-18 2-deoxy-2-fluoro-D-glucose PET in the preoperative staging of breast cancer: comparison with the standard staging procedures.  Eur J Nucl Med. 2001;  28 351-358
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 60 Maffioli L, Florimonte L, Pagani L, Butti I, Roca I. Breast cancer: diagnostic and therapeutic options.  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2004;  31 S143-S148
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 61 Smith T J, Davidson N E, Schapira D V et al.. American Society of Clinical Oncology 1998 update of recommended breast cancer surveillance guidelines.  J Clin Oncol. 1999;  17 1080-1082
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 62 Eubank W B, Mankoff D A. Current and future uses of positron emission tomography in breast cancer imaging.  Semin Nucl Med. 2004;  34 224-240
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 63 Wahl R L. Current status of PET in breast cancer imaging, staging, and therapy.  Semin Roentgenol. 2001;  36 250-260
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 64 Langsteger W, Heinisch M, Fogelman I. The role of fluorodeoxyglucose, 18F-dihydroxyphenylalanine, 18F-choline, and 18F-fluoride in bone imaging with emphasis on prostate and breast.  Semin Nucl Med. 2006;  36 73-92
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 65 Nakai T, Okuyama C, Kubota T et al.. Pitfalls of FDG-PET for the diagnosis of osteoblastic bone metastases in patients with breast cancer.  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2005;  32 1253-1258
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 66 Abe K, Sasaki M, Kuwabara Y et al.. Comparison of 18FDG-PET with 99mTc-HMDP scintigraphy for the detection of bone metastases in patients with breast cancer.  Ann Nucl Med. 2005;  19 573-579
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 67 Lonneux M, Borbath I, Berliere M, Kirkove C, Pauwels S. The place of whole-body PET FDG for the diagnosis of distant recurrence of breast cancer.  Clin Positron Imaging. 2000;  3 45-49
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 68 Port E R, Yeung H, Gonen M et al.. (18)F-2-fluoro-2-deoxy-d: -glucose positron emission tomography scanning affects surgical management in selected patients with high-risk, operable breast carcinoma.  Ann Surg Oncol. 2006;  13 677-684
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 69 Lardinois D, Weder W, Hany T F et al.. Staging of non-small-cell lung cancer with integrated positron-emission tomography and computed tomography.  N Engl J Med. 2003;  348 2500-2507
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 70 Cheran S K, Herndon J E, Patz E F. Comparison of whole-body FDG-PET to bone scan for detection of bone metastases in patients with a new diagnosis of lung cancer.  Lung Cancer. 2004;  44 317-325
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 71 Fricke E, Machtens S, Hofmann M et al.. Positron emission tomography with 11C-acetate and 18F-FDG in prostate cancer patients.  Eur J Nucl Med. Mol Imaging. 2003;  30 607-611
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 72 Schoder H, Larson S M. Positron emission tomography for prostate, bladder, and renal cancer.  Semin Nucl Med. 2004;  34 274-292
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 73 Abuzallouf S, Dayes I, Lukka H. Baseline staging of newly diagnosed prostate cancer: a summary of the literature.  J Urol. 2004;  171 2122-2127
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 74 Shreve P D, Grossman H B, Gross M D, Wahl R L. Metastatic prostate cancer: initial finding of PET 2-deoxyglucose-[F-18]fluoro-D-glucose.  Radiology. 1996;  199 751-756
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 75 Jana S, Blaufox M D. Nuclear medicine studies of the prostate, testes, and bladder.  Semin Nucl Med. 2006;  36 51-72
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 76 Morris M J, Akhurst T, Osman I et al.. Fluorinated deoxyglucose positron emission tomography imaging in progressive metastatic prostate cancer.  Urology. 2002;  59 913-918
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 77 Moog F, Kotzerke J, Reske S N. FDG PET can replace bone scintigraphy in primary staging of malignant lymphoma.  J Nucl Med. 1999;  40 1407-1413
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 78 Schaefer N G, Strobel K, Taverna C, Hany T F. Bone involvement in patients with lymphoma: the role of FDG-PET/CT.  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2007;  34 60-67
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 79 Guermazi A, Brice P, de Kerviler E E et al.. Extranodal Hodgkin disease: spectrum of disease.  Radiographics. 2001;  21 161-179
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 80 Pakos E E, Fotopoulos A D, Ioannidis J P. 18F-FDG PET for evaluation of bone marrow infiltration in staging of lymphoma: a meta-analysis.  J Nucl Med. 2005;  46 958-963
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 81 Carr R, Barrington S F, Madan B et al.. Detection of lymphoma in bone marrow by whole body positron emission tomography.  Blood. 1998;  91 3340-3346
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 82 Baar J, Burkes R L, Gospodarowicz M. Primary non-Hodgkin's lymphoma of bone.  Semin Oncol. 1999;  26 270-275
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 83 Edeiken-Monroe B, Edeiken J, Kim E E. Radiologic concepts of lymphoma of bone.  Radiol Clin North Am. 1990;  28 841-864
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 84 Even-Sapir E, Lievshitz G, Perry C, Herishanu Y, Lerman H, Metser U. Fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose PET/CT patterns of extranodal involvement in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma and Hodgkin's disease.  Radiol Clin North Am. 2007;  45 697-709
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 85 Durie B G, Waxman A D, D'Agnolo A, Williams C M. Whole-body 18F-FDG PET identifies high-risk myeloma.  J Nucl Med. 2002;  43 1457-1463
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 86 Schirrmeister H, Bommer M, Buck A K et al.. Initial results in the assessment of multiple myeloma using F-18 FDG PET.  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2002;  29 361-366
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 87 Nanni C, Zamagni E, Farsad M et al.. Role of (18)F-FDG PET/CT in the assessment of bone involvement in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: preliminary results.  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2006;  33 525-531
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 88 Mahfouz T, Miceli M H, Saghafifar F et al.. 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography contributes to the diagnosis and management of infections in patients with multiple myeloma: a study of 165 infectious episodes.  J Clin Oncol. 2005;  23 7857-7863
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Einat Even-SapirM.D. Ph.D. 

Department of Nuclear Medicine, Tel-Aviv Sourasky Medical Center

6 Weizman St., Tel-Aviv, 64239 Israel

Email: evensap@tasmc.health.gov.il

      >