Chiara Lauri1,2, Menno Tamminga1, Andor W J M Glaudemans1, Luis Eduardo Juárez Orozco1, Paola A Erba3, Paul C Jutte4, Benjamin A Lipsky5,6, Maarten J IJzerman7, Alberto Signore1,2, Riemer H J A Slart8,9. 1. Department of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands. 2. Nuclear Medicine Unit, Faculty of Medicine and Psychology, Department of Medical-Surgical Sciences and of Translational Medicine, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy. 3. Department of Nuclear Medicine, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy. 4. Department of Orthopedics, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands. 5. Division of Medical Sciences, Green Templeton College, University of Oxford, Oxford, U.K. 6. Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA. 7. Department of Health Technology and Services Research, MIRA Institute for Biomedical Technology & Technical Medicine, University of Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands. 8. Department of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands r.h.j.a.slart@umcg.nl. 9. Department of Biomedical Photonic Imaging, University of Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Diagnosing bone infection in the diabetic foot is challenging and often requires several diagnostic procedures, including advanced imaging. We compared the diagnostic performances of MRI, radiolabeled white blood cell (WBC) scintigraphy (either with 99mTc-hexamethylpropyleneamineoxime [HMPAO] or 111In-oxine), and [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (18F-FDG-PET)/computed tomography. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We searched Medline and Embase as of August 2016 for studies of diagnostic tests on patients known or suspected to have diabetes and a foot infection. We performed a systematic review using criteria recommended by the Cochrane Review of a database that included prospective and retrospective diagnostic studies performed on patients with diabetes in whom there was a clinical suspicion of osteomyelitis of the foot. The preferred reference standard was bone biopsy and subsequent pathological (or microbiological) examination. RESULTS: Our review found 6,649 articles; 3,894 in Medline and 2,755 in Embase. A total of 27 full articles and 2 posters was selected for inclusion in the analysis. The performance characteristics for the 18F-FDG-PET were: sensitivity, 89%; specificity, 92%; diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), 95; positive likelihood ratio (LR), 11; and negative LR, 0.11. For WBC scan with 111In-oxine, the values were: sensitivity, 92%; specificity, 75%; DOR, 34; positive LR, 3.6; and negative LR, 0.1. For WBC scan with 99mTc-HMPAO, the values were: sensitivity, 91%; specificity, 92%; DOR, 118; positive LR, 12; and negative LR, 0.1. Finally, for MRI, the values were: sensitivity, 93%; specificity, 75%; DOR, 37; positive LR, 3.66, and negative LR, 0.10. CONCLUSIONS: The various modalities have similar sensitivity, but 18F-FDG-PET and 99mTc-HMPAO-labeled WBC scintigraphy offer the highest specificity. Larger prospective studies with a direct comparison among the different imaging techniques are required.
OBJECTIVE: Diagnosing bone infection in the diabetic foot is challenging and often requires several diagnostic procedures, including advanced imaging. We compared the diagnostic performances of MRI, radiolabeled white blood cell (WBC) scintigraphy (either with 99mTc-hexamethylpropyleneamineoxime [HMPAO] or 111In-oxine), and [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (18F-FDG-PET)/computed tomography. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We searched Medline and Embase as of August 2016 for studies of diagnostic tests on patients known or suspected to have diabetes and a foot infection. We performed a systematic review using criteria recommended by the Cochrane Review of a database that included prospective and retrospective diagnostic studies performed on patients with diabetes in whom there was a clinical suspicion of osteomyelitis of the foot. The preferred reference standard was bone biopsy and subsequent pathological (or microbiological) examination. RESULTS: Our review found 6,649 articles; 3,894 in Medline and 2,755 in Embase. A total of 27 full articles and 2 posters was selected for inclusion in the analysis. The performance characteristics for the 18F-FDG-PET were: sensitivity, 89%; specificity, 92%; diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), 95; positive likelihood ratio (LR), 11; and negative LR, 0.11. For WBC scan with 111In-oxine, the values were: sensitivity, 92%; specificity, 75%; DOR, 34; positive LR, 3.6; and negative LR, 0.1. For WBC scan with 99mTc-HMPAO, the values were: sensitivity, 91%; specificity, 92%; DOR, 118; positive LR, 12; and negative LR, 0.1. Finally, for MRI, the values were: sensitivity, 93%; specificity, 75%; DOR, 37; positive LR, 3.66, and negative LR, 0.10. CONCLUSIONS: The various modalities have similar sensitivity, but 18F-FDG-PET and 99mTc-HMPAO-labeled WBC scintigraphy offer the highest specificity. Larger prospective studies with a direct comparison among the different imaging techniques are required.
Authors: Christopher Palestro; Alicia Clark; Erin Grady; Sherif Heiba; Ora Israel; Alan Klitzke; Charito Love; Mike Sathekge; S Ted Treves; Tracy L Yarbrough Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2021-09-30 Impact factor: 11.082
Authors: Jacob C Mandell; Bharti Khurana; Jeremy T Smith; Gregory J Czuczman; Varand Ghazikhanian; Stacy E Smith Journal: Emerg Radiol Date: 2017-10-20
Authors: Camilo A Ruiz-Bedoya; Oren Gordon; Filipa Mota; Sudhanshu Abhishek; Elizabeth W Tucker; Alvaro A Ordonez; Sanjay K Jain Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2019-11-28 Impact factor: 5.923