OBJECTIVE: In diagnosing osteomyelitis (OM) both MRI and [18 F]FDG PET-CT proved to be accurate modalities. In anticipation of the advent of hybrid PET/MRI scanners we analyzed our patient group to give direction to future imaging strategies in patients with suspected OM. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this retrospective study all patients of a tertiary referral center who underwent both an MRI and a PET for the diagnosis of OM were included. The results of those scans were evaluated using patient's histology, microbiological findings, and clinical/radiological follow-up. Additionally, ROC curve analysis of the SUVmax and the SUVmax ratio on the PET scans was performed. Two imaging strategies were simulated: first MRI followed by PET, or vice versa. RESULTS: Twenty-seven localizations in 26 patients were included. Both MRI and PET were shown to be accurate in our patients for the qualitative detection of OM. A cut-off value for the SUVmax of 3 gave optimal results (a specificity of 90 % with a sensitivity of 88 %). The SUVmax ratio gave a worse performance. The two simulated imaging strategies showed no difference in the final diagnosis in 20 out of 27 cases. Remarkably, 6 equivocal cases were all correctly diagnosed by the second modality, i.e., PET or MRI. CONCLUSION: Both MRI and [18 F]FDG PET were accurate in diagnosing OM in a tertiary referral hospital population. Simulation of imaging strategies showed that a combined sequential strategy was optimal. It seems preferable to use MRI as a primary imaging tool for uncomplicated unifocal cases, whereas in cases with (possible) multifocal disease or a contraindication for MRI, PET is preferred. This combined sequential strategy looks promising, but needs to be confirmed in a larger prospective study.
OBJECTIVE: In diagnosing osteomyelitis (OM) both MRI and [18 F]FDG PET-CT proved to be accurate modalities. In anticipation of the advent of hybrid PET/MRI scanners we analyzed our patient group to give direction to future imaging strategies in patients with suspected OM. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this retrospective study all patients of a tertiary referral center who underwent both an MRI and a PET for the diagnosis of OM were included. The results of those scans were evaluated using patient's histology, microbiological findings, and clinical/radiological follow-up. Additionally, ROC curve analysis of the SUVmax and the SUVmax ratio on the PET scans was performed. Two imaging strategies were simulated: first MRI followed by PET, or vice versa. RESULTS: Twenty-seven localizations in 26 patients were included. Both MRI and PET were shown to be accurate in our patients for the qualitative detection of OM. A cut-off value for the SUVmax of 3 gave optimal results (a specificity of 90 % with a sensitivity of 88 %). The SUVmax ratio gave a worse performance. The two simulated imaging strategies showed no difference in the final diagnosis in 20 out of 27 cases. Remarkably, 6 equivocal cases were all correctly diagnosed by the second modality, i.e., PET or MRI. CONCLUSION: Both MRI and [18 F]FDG PET were accurate in diagnosing OM in a tertiary referral hospital population. Simulation of imaging strategies showed that a combined sequential strategy was optimal. It seems preferable to use MRI as a primary imaging tool for uncomplicated unifocal cases, whereas in cases with (possible) multifocal disease or a contraindication for MRI, PET is preferred. This combined sequential strategy looks promising, but needs to be confirmed in a larger prospective study.
Authors: Ronald Boellaard; Wim J G Oyen; Corneline J Hoekstra; Otto S Hoekstra; Eric P Visser; Antoon T Willemsen; Bertjan Arends; Fred J Verzijlbergen; Josee Zijlstra; Anne M Paans; Emile F I Comans; Jan Pruim Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2008-08-15 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Joseph C Harris; Dave H Caesar; Carol Davison; Rebecca Phibbs; Martin P Than Journal: Emerg Med Australas Date: 2011-04-04 Impact factor: 2.151
Authors: B Schwegler; K D M Stumpe; D Weishaupt; K Strobel; G A Spinas; G K von Schulthess; J Hodler; T Böni; M Y Donath Journal: J Intern Med Date: 2007-11-23 Impact factor: 8.989
Authors: Vera Wenter; Jan-Phillip Müller; Nathalie L Albert; Sebastian Lehner; Wolfgang P Fendler; Peter Bartenstein; Clemens C Cyran; Jan Friederichs; Matthias Militz; Marcus Hacker; Sven Hungerer Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2015-11-07 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: M Beth McCarville; Jim Y Chen; Jamie L Coleman; Yimei Li; Xingyu Li; Elisabeth E Adderson; Mike D Neel; Robert E Gold; Robert A Kaufman Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2015-09 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Luca Maria Sconfienza; Alberto Signore; Victor Cassar-Pullicino; Maria Adriana Cataldo; Olivier Gheysens; Olivier Borens; Andrej Trampuz; Klaus Wörtler; Nicola Petrosillo; Heinz Winkler; Filip M H M Vanhoenacker; Paul C Jutte; Andor W J M Glaudemans Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2019-06-27 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Jim C E Odekerken; Geert H I M Walenkamp; Boudewijn T Brans; Tim J M Welting; Jacobus J C Arts Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2014-09-11 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Emilio Filippucci; Walter Grassi; Andrea Di Matteo; Gianluca Smerilli; Edoardo Cipolletta; Fausto Salaffi; Rossella De Angelis; Marco Di Carlo Journal: Curr Rheumatol Rep Date: 2021-07-16 Impact factor: 4.592