Download PDF
Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 2014; 18(02): 166-174
DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1371018
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

The Role of PET in the Evaluation of Musculoskeletal Infections

Steven P. Rowe
1   The Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, Maryland
,
Steve Y. Cho
1   The Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, Maryland
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
08 April 2014 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Musculoskeletal infections, particularly those in regions of complex anatomy and at postoperative sites, can be difficult to evaluate clinically, yet accurate diagnosis is essential to treat these infections promptly and correctly. Although anatomical imaging modalities are commonly used to diagnose musculoskeletal infections, the application of functional imaging through nuclear medicine techniques has long played a unique and important role in the evaluation of patients with suspected infections. In addition to the standard nuclear medicine single-photon emitting radiotracers traditionally used by nuclear medicine for planar and single-photon emission computed tomography infection imaging, in recent years we have seen a growth in the application of fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) and PET/CT applied to the detection and diagnosis of infection. In this review, we discuss the most common clinical scenarios in which musculoskeletal infection is suspected and for which FDG PET has been studied, in spinal, diabetic foot, and periprosthetic infections. We also highlight recent advances in new non-FDG PET radiotracers that may in the future enable better specificity for and characterization of musculoskeletal infections.

Keywords

positron emission tomography (PET) - fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) - musculoskeletal infection
 

  • References

  • 1 Love C, Tomas MB, Tronco GG, Palestro CJ. FDG PET of infection and inflammation. Radiographics 2005; 25 (5) 1357-1368
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Mariani G, Bruselli L, Kuwert T , et al. A review on the clinical uses of SPECT/CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2010; 37 (10) 1959-1985
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Scharf S. SPECT/CT imaging in general orthopedic practice. Semin Nucl Med 2009; 39 (5) 293-307
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Cheng G, Fosse P, Zhuang H, Hustinx R. Applications of PET and PET/CT in the evaluation of infection and inflammation in the skeletal system. PET Clin 2010; 5 (3) 375-385
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 de Winter F, van de Wiele C, Vogelaers D, de Smet K, Verdonk R, Dierckx RA. Fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose-position emission tomography: a highly accurate imaging modality for the diagnosis of chronic musculoskeletal infections. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2001; 83-A (5) 651-660
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Kälicke T, Schmitz A, Risse JH , et al. Fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose PET in infectious bone diseases: results of histologically confirmed cases. Eur J Nucl Med 2000; 27 (5) 524-528
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Palestro CJ, Love C, Miller TT. Infection and musculoskeletal conditions: imaging of musculoskeletal infections. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 2006; 20 (6) 1197-1218
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Palestro CJ. FDG-PET in musculoskeletal infections. Semin Nucl Med 2013; 43 (5) 367-376
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Zhuang H, Yu JQ, Alavi A. Applications of fluorodeoxyglucose-PET imaging in the detection of infection and inflammation and other benign disorders. Radiol Clin North Am 2005; 43 (1) 121-134
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Goldsmith SJ, Vallabhajosula S. Clinically proven radiopharmaceuticals for infection imaging: mechanisms and applications. Semin Nucl Med 2009; 39 (1) 2-10
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Basu S, Chryssikos T, Moghadam-Kia S, Zhuang H, Torigian DA, Alavi A. Positron emission tomography as a diagnostic tool in infection: present role and future possibilities. Semin Nucl Med 2009; 39 (1) 36-51
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Hartmann A, Eid K, Dora C, Trentz O, von Schulthess GK, Stumpe KD. Diagnostic value of 18F-FDG PET/CT in trauma patients with suspected chronic osteomyelitis. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2007; 34 (5) 704-714
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Kim SJ, Lee JS, Suh KT, Kim IJ, Kim YK. Differentiation of tuberculous and pyogenic spondylitis using double phase F-18 FDG PET. Open Med Imaging J 2008; 2: 1-6
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Sathekge M, Maes A, Van de Wiele C. FDG-PET imaging in HIV infection and tuberculosis. Semin Nucl Med 2013; 43 (5) 349-366
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Zhuang H, Duarte PS, Pourdehand M, Shnier D, Alavi A. Exclusion of chronic osteomyelitis with F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomographic imaging. Clin Nucl Med 2000; 25 (4) 281-284
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Mochizuki T, Tsukamoto E, Kuge Y , et al. FDG uptake and glucose transporter subtype expressions in experimental tumor and inflammation models. J Nucl Med 2001; 42 (10) 1551-1555
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Paik JY, Lee KH, Choe YS, Choi Y, Kim BT. Augmented 18F-FDG uptake in activated monocytes occurs during the priming process and involves tyrosine kinases and protein kinase C. J Nucl Med 2004; 45 (1) 124-128
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Sarrazin J-F, Philippon F, Tessier M , et al. Usefulness of fluorine-18 positron emission tomography/computed tomography for identification of cardiovascular implantable electronic device infections. J Am Coll Cardiol 2012; 59 (18) 1616-1625
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Kouijzer IJ, Bleeker-Rovers CP, Oyen WJ. FDG-PET in fever of unknown origin. Semin Nucl Med 2013; 43 (5) 333-339
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Gemmel F, Dumarey N, Palestro CJ. Radionuclide imaging of spinal infections. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2006; 33 (10) 1226-1237
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Palestro CJ, Love C. Radionuclide imaging of musculoskeletal infection: conventional agents. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 2007; 11 (4) 335-352
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Treglia G, Focacci C, Caldarella C , et al. The role of nuclear medicine in the diagnosis of spondylodiscitis. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 2012; 16 (Suppl. 02) 20-25
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Gemmel F, Rijk PC, Collins JMP, Parlevliet T, Stumpe KD, Palestro CJ. Expanding role of 18F-fluoro-D-deoxyglucose PET and PET/CT in spinal infections. Eur Spine J 2010; 19 (4) 540-551
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Leone A, Dell'Atti C, Magarelli N , et al. Imaging of spondylodiscitis. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 2012; 16 (Suppl. 02) 8-19
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Palestro CJ, Kim CK, Swyer AJ, Vallabhajosula S, Goldsmith SJ. Radionuclide diagnosis of vertebral osteomyelitis: indium-111-leukocyte and technetium-99m-methylene diphosphonate bone scintigraphy. J Nucl Med 1991; 32 (10) 1861-1865
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Guhlmann A, Brecht-Krauss D, Suger G , et al. Chronic osteomyelitis: detection with FDG PET and correlation with histopathologic findings. Radiology 1998; 206 (3) 749-754
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Gratz S, Dörner J, Fischer U , et al. 18F-FDG hybrid PET in patients with suspected spondylitis. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2002; 29 (4) 516-524
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Stumpe KD, Zanetti M, Weishaupt D, Hodler J, Boos N, Von Schulthess GK. FDG positron emission tomography for differentiation of degenerative and infectious endplate abnormalities in the lumbar spine detected on MR imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002; 179 (5) 1151-1157
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 De Winter F, Gemmel F, Van De Wiele C, Poffijn B, Uyttendaele D, Dierckx R. 18-Fluorine fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography for the diagnosis of infection in the postoperative spine. Spine 2003; 28 (12) 1314-1319
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Rosen RS, Fayad L, Wahl RL. Increased 18F-FDG uptake in degenerative disease of the spine: characterization with 18F-FDG PET/CT. J Nucl Med 2006; 47 (8) 1274-1280
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Palestro CJ. 18F-FDG and diabetic foot infections: the verdict is . . . J Nucl Med 2011; 52 (7) 1009-1011
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Basu S, Chryssikos T, Houseni M , et al. Potential role of FDG PET in the setting of diabetic neuro-osteoarthropathy: can it differentiate uncomplicated Charcot's neuroarthropathy from osteomyelitis and soft-tissue infection?. Nucl Med Commun 2007; 28 (6) 465-472
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Palestro CJ, Love C. Nuclear medicine and diabetic foot infections. Semin Nucl Med 2009; 39 (1) 52-65
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Rogers LC, Bevilacqua NJ. Imaging of the Charcot foot. Clin Podiatr Med Surg 2008; 25 (2) 263-274 , vii
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Keidar Z, Militianu D, Melamed E, Bar-Shalom R, Israel O. The diabetic foot: initial experience with 18F-FDG-PET/CT. J Nucl Med 2005; 46 (3) 444-449
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Schwegler B, Stumpe KD, Weishaupt D , et al. Unsuspected osteomyelitis is frequent in persistent diabetic foot ulcer and better diagnosed by MRI than by 18F-FDG PET or 99mTc-MOAB. J Intern Med 2008; 263 (1) 99-106
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Nawaz A, Torigian DA, Siegelman ES, Basu S, Chryssikos T, Alavi A. Diagnostic performance of FDG-PET, MRI, and plain film radiography (PFR) for the diagnosis of osteomyelitis in the diabetic foot. Mol Imaging Biol 2010; 12 (3) 335-342
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Familiari D, Glaudemans AWJM, Vitale V , et al. Can sequential 18F-FDG PET/CT replace WBC imaging in the diabetic foot?. J Nucl Med 2011; 52 (7) 1012-1019
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Kagna O, Srour S, Melamed E, Militianu D, Keidar Z. FDG PET/CT imaging in the diagnosis of osteomyelitis in the diabetic foot. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2012; 39 (10) 1545-1550
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Rabkin Z, Israel O, Keidar Z. Do hyperglycemia and diabetes affect the incidence of false-negative 18F-FDG PET/CT studies in patients evaluated for infection or inflammation and cancer? A comparative analysis. J Nucl Med 2010; 51 (7) 1015-1020
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Love C, Marwin SE, Palestro CJ. Nuclear medicine and the infected joint replacement. Semin Nucl Med 2009; 39 (1) 66-78
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Squire MW, Della Valle CJ, Parvizi J. Preoperative diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection: role of aspiration. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2011; 196 (4) 875-879
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Boas FE, Fleischmann D. Evaluation of two iterative techniques for reducing metal artifacts in computed tomography. Radiology 2011; 259 (3) 894-902
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Lu W, Pauly KB, Gold GE, Pauly JM, Hargreaves BA. SEMAC: Slice Encoding for Metal Artifact Correction in MRI. Magn Reson Med 2009; 62 (1) 66-76
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Zhuang H, Duarte PS, Pourdehnad M , et al. The promising role of 18F-FDG PET in detecting infected lower limb prosthesis implants. J Nucl Med 2001; 42 (1) 44-48
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Chacko TK, Zhuang H, Stevenson K, Moussavian B, Alavi A. The importance of the location of fluorodeoxyglucose uptake in periprosthetic infection in painful hip prostheses. Nucl Med Commun 2002; 23 (9) 851-855
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Reinartz P, Mumme T, Hermanns B , et al. Radionuclide imaging of the painful hip arthroplasty: positron-emission tomography versus triple-phase bone scanning. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2005; 87 (4) 465-470
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Manthey N, Reinhard P, Moog F, Knesewitsch P, Hahn K, Tatsch K. The use of [18 F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography to differentiate between synovitis, loosening and infection of hip and knee prostheses. Nucl Med Commun 2002; 23 (7) 645-653
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Van Acker F, Nuyts J, Maes A , et al. FDG-PET, 99mtc-HMPAO white blood cell SPET and bone scintigraphy in the evaluation of painful total knee arthroplasties. Eur J Nucl Med 2001; 28 (10) 1496-1504
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Stumpe KD, Nötzli HP, Zanetti M , et al. FDG PET for differentiation of infection and aseptic loosening in total hip replacements: comparison with conventional radiography and three-phase bone scintigraphy. Radiology 2004; 231 (2) 333-341
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Love C, Marwin SE, Tomas MB , et al. Diagnosing infection in the failed joint replacement: a comparison of coincidence detection 18F-FDG and 111In-labeled leukocyte/99mTc-sulfur colloid marrow imaging. J Nucl Med 2004; 45 (11) 1864-1871
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Pill SG, Parvizi J, Tang PH , et al. Comparison of fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography and (111)indium-white blood cell imaging in the diagnosis of periprosthetic infection of the hip. J Arthroplasty 2006; 21 (6) (Suppl. 02) 91-97
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Kwee TC, Kwee RM, Alavi A. FDG-PET for diagnosing prosthetic joint infection: systematic review and metaanalysis. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2008; 35 (11) 2122-2132
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Forstrom LA, Dunn WL, Mullan BP, Hung JC, Lowe VJ, Thorson LM. Biodistribution and dosimetry of [(18)F]fluorodeoxyglucose labelled leukocytes in normal human subjects. Nucl Med Commun 2002; 23 (8) 721-725
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Dumarey N, Egrise D, Blocklet D , et al. Imaging infection with 18F-FDG-labeled leukocyte PET/CT: initial experience in 21 patients. J Nucl Med 2006; 47 (4) 625-632
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 56 Rini JN, Bhargava KK, Tronco GG , et al. PET with FDG-labeled leukocytes versus scintigraphy with 111In-oxine-labeled leukocytes for detection of infection. Radiology 2006; 238 (3) 978-987
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 57 Rini JN, Palestro CJ. Imaging of infection and inflammation with 18F-FDG-labeled leukocytes. Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2006; 50 (2) 143-146
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 58 Diaz Jr LA, Foss CA, Thornton K , et al. Imaging of musculoskeletal bacterial infections by [124I]FIAU-PET/CT. PLoS ONE 2007; 2 (10) e1007
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 59 Nanni C, Errani C, Boriani L , et al. 68Ga-citrate PET/CT for evaluating patients with infections of the bone: preliminary results. J Nucl Med 2010; 51 (12) 1932-1936
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 60 Petrik M, Haas H, Dobrozemsky G , et al. 68Ga-siderophores for PET imaging of invasive pulmonary aspergillosis: proof of principle. J Nucl Med 2010; 51 (4) 639-645
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 61 Ujula T, Salomäki S, Virsu P , et al. Synthesis, 68Ga labeling and preliminary evaluation of DOTA peptide binding vascular adhesion protein-1: a potential PET imaging agent for diagnosing osteomyelitis. Nucl Med Biol 2009; 36 (6) 631-641
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 62 Langer O, Brunner M, Zeitlinger M , et al. In vitro and in vivo evaluation of [18F]ciprofloxacin for the imaging of bacterial infections with PET. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2005; 32 (2) 143-150
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 63 Lindsay MJ, Siegel BA, Tunis SR , et al. The National Oncologic PET Registry: expanded Medicare coverage for PET under coverage with evidence development. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007; 188 (4) 1109-1113
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 64 Hillner BE, Siegel BA, Liu D , et al. Impact of positron emission tomography/computed tomography and positron emission tomography (PET) alone on expected management of patients with cancer: initial results from the National Oncologic PET Registry. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26 (13) 2155-2161
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar