PURPOSE: Although positron emission tomography (PET) using 2-[18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose (18F-FDG) is a promising imaging modality for bone infections, the technique may still give false-positive results due to unspecific uptake in healing bone. This experimental study compared 18F-FDG and 68Ga in PET imaging of osteomyelitis and normal bone healing. METHODS: A diffuse osteomyelitis model of the tibia was applied in the rat (n=50). Two weeks after operation, PET imaging with 18F-FDG and 68Ga was performed, followed by peripheral quantitative computed tomography (pQCT) and radiography. Osteomyelitis was verified by quantitative bacteriology. In addition to in vivo imaging, ex vivo measurements of tissue radioactivity were performed to verify uptake of the tracers. RESULTS: Compared with controls with normal bone healing, the osteomyelitic tibias showed increased SUV ratios (i.e. radioactivity ratios between the operated and non-operated sides) for both 18F-FDG (1.74+/-0.37) and 68Ga (1.62+/-0.28) (P<0.001). Ex vivo measurements also showed increased tracer accumulation in the infected bone (P=0.003 for 18F-FDG and P<0.001 for 68Ga). The intensity of 68Ga uptake reflected pathological changes of osteomyelitic bones measured by pQCT. The uptake of 18F-FDG, however, did not show as close a correlation with the anatomical changes. The healing bones without infection exhibited slightly elevated uptake of 18F-FDG (SUV ratio 1.16+/-0.06), but 68Ga did not accumulate in the healing bone, as judged on the basis of both in vivo imaging (SUV ratio 1.02+/-0.05) and ex vivo measurements (SUV 0.92+/-0.21) (P=0.003 and P=0.022 compared with 18F-FDG uptake, respectively). CONCLUSION: This study suggests the feasibility of 68Ga PET imaging of bone infections. However, further studies are needed to clarify the value of 68Ga PET for clinical purposes.
PURPOSE: Although positron emission tomography (PET) using 2-[18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose (18F-FDG) is a promising imaging modality for bone infections, the technique may still give false-positive results due to unspecific uptake in healing bone. This experimental study compared 18F-FDG and 68Ga in PET imaging of osteomyelitis and normal bone healing. METHODS: A diffuse osteomyelitis model of the tibia was applied in the rat (n=50). Two weeks after operation, PET imaging with 18F-FDG and 68Ga was performed, followed by peripheral quantitative computed tomography (pQCT) and radiography. Osteomyelitis was verified by quantitative bacteriology. In addition to in vivo imaging, ex vivo measurements of tissue radioactivity were performed to verify uptake of the tracers. RESULTS: Compared with controls with normal bone healing, the osteomyelitic tibias showed increased SUV ratios (i.e. radioactivity ratios between the operated and non-operated sides) for both 18F-FDG (1.74+/-0.37) and 68Ga (1.62+/-0.28) (P<0.001). Ex vivo measurements also showed increased tracer accumulation in the infected bone (P=0.003 for 18F-FDG and P<0.001 for 68Ga). The intensity of 68Ga uptake reflected pathological changes of osteomyelitic bones measured by pQCT. The uptake of 18F-FDG, however, did not show as close a correlation with the anatomical changes. The healing bones without infection exhibited slightly elevated uptake of 18F-FDG (SUV ratio 1.16+/-0.06), but 68Ga did not accumulate in the healing bone, as judged on the basis of both in vivo imaging (SUV ratio 1.02+/-0.05) and ex vivo measurements (SUV 0.92+/-0.21) (P=0.003 and P=0.022 compared with 18F-FDG uptake, respectively). CONCLUSION: This study suggests the feasibility of 68Ga PET imaging of bone infections. However, further studies are needed to clarify the value of 68Ga PET for clinical purposes.
Authors: Anne Roivainen; Tuula Tolvanen; Satu Salomäki; Gabor Lendvai; Irina Velikyan; Petri Numminen; Maria Välilä; Hannu Sipilä; Mats Bergström; Pirkko Härkönen; Harri Lönnberg; Bengt Långström Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Petteri Lankinen; Tatu J Mäkinen; Tiina A Pöyhönen; Pauliina Virsu; Satu Salomäki; Antti J Hakanen; Sirpa Jalkanen; Hannu T Aro; Anne Roivainen Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2007-11-24 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Ole L Nielsen; Pia Afzelius; Dirk Bender; Henrik C Schønheyder; Páll S Leifsson; Karin M Nielsen; Jytte O Larsen; Svend B Jensen; Aage Ko Alstrup Journal: Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2015-01-15
Authors: Filip Gemmel; Hans Van den Wyngaert; Charito Love; M M Welling; Paul Gemmel; Christopher J Palestro Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2012-02-24 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Anu Autio; Tiina Ujula; Pauliina Luoto; Satu Salomäki; Sirpa Jalkanen; Anne Roivainen Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2010-06-04 Impact factor: 9.236