| Literature DB >> 35328234 |
Ramune Aleksyniene1, Victor Iyer1,2, Henrik Christian Bertelsen1, Majbritt Frost Nilsson1, Vesal Khalid3,4, Henrik Carl Schønheyder5, Lone Heimann Larsen5, Poul Torben Nielsen6, Andreas Kappel6, Trine Rolighed Thomsen7,8, Jan Lorenzen8, Iben Ørsted9, Ole Simonsen6, Peter Lüttge Jordal8, Sten Rasmussen3,4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this prospective study was to assess the diagnostic value of nuclear imaging with 18F-FDG PET/CT (FDG PET/CT), combined 111In-WBC/99mTc-Nanocoll, and 99mTc-HDP SPECT/CT (dual-isotope WBC/bone marrow scan) for patients with chronic problems related to knee or hip prostheses (TKA or THA) scheduled by a structured multidisciplinary algorithm.Entities:
Keywords: FDG PET/CT; bone scan; dual-isotope WBC/bone marrow scan; hybrid imaging; labeled leucocyte imaging; nuclear imaging; periprosthetic infection; prosthetic joint infection
Year: 2022 PMID: 35328234 PMCID: PMC8947521 DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics12030681
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) ISSN: 2075-4418
Figure A1Diagnostic algorithm for the PRIS study.
Patient demographics.
| Basic Demographics | Hip | Knee |
|---|---|---|
| Patient age, years (mean, SD) | 64.2 (14.4) | 64.4 (12.2) |
| Gender, number | ||
| Males ( | 16 | 13 |
| Females ( | 9 | 17 |
| Joint ( | 26 | 29 |
| Prosthesis age, months (median, range) | 38 (4–120) | 41.5 (8–176) |
| Surgical procedures | ||
| Revision ( | 10 | 9 |
| Joint aspiration ( | 2 | 1 |
| Follow-up period from imaging to final clinical MDT, months (median, range) | 33 (6–45) | 34 (21–42) |
Figure A2Definition of post-operative and post-radionuclide diagnosis.
Figure 1Three hybrid imaging modalities for the same patient with an infected knee prosthesis. (A) FDG PET/CT (showing high FDG uptake located in distal femoral bone marrow and around cortical bone defects, also around the screws in lateral femoral condyle (arrows)). (B,C) Dual-isotope combined In-labeled leucocyte SPECT/CT (B) and bone marrow SPECT/CT (C) (showing mis-matched focal leucocyte uptake (arrow) in distal femoral bone marrow and around cortical bone defects, also around the screws in lateral femoral condyle). (D,E) Bone scan; static uptake (D), SPECT/CT (E) (showing generally high uptake in bone tissue around the prosthesis and metal fixation both in distal femur and proximal tibia).
Figure 2Three hybrid imaging modalities for the same patient with an infected hip prosthesis. (A-1) and (A-2) FDG PET/CT, showing high FDG uptake in the periprosthetic soft tissue communicating with intraarticular space (red arrows). (B,C) Combined In-labeled leucocyte SPECT/CT (B) and bone marrow SPECT/CT (C) (showing focal leucocyte uptake in the soft tissue (arrows) and mis-matched focal leucocyte uptake in the prosthesis bone interface in the femoral part (arrows). (D,E) Bone scan; static uptake (D), SPECT/CT (E) (showing generally high uptake in bone tissue around the prosthesis in proximal femur).
Figure 3The uptake on images was registered according to the Gruens zones for femoral component (1–7) (A) and Charnley deLee (B) zones for acetabular component (1–3) for hip prostheses (a) and a custom-made scheme for knee prostheses (b).
Figure 4Patients excluded from the statistical analysis.
Results of the hybrid imaging.
| Imaging Modality | No Increased Uptake | Increased Uptake | Total Number | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PJI Suspected | PJI Not Suspected | ||||||
| THA | TKA | THA | TKA | THA | TKA | ||
| Bone SPECT/CT | 4 | 2 | * | * | * | * | 55 |
| Dual-isotope SPECT/CT | 14 | 17 | 8 | 9 | 0 | 3 | 51 |
| FDG PET/CT | 8 | 5 | 13 | 14 | 4 | 11 | 55 |
* Not classified according the PJI.
Diagnostic performance of dual-isotope SPECT/CT and FDG PET/CT when excluding patients with equivocal clinical follow-up results. TP, true positive; FP, false positive; TN, true negative; FN false negative. CI, confidence interval; n, number of performed tests; PPV, positive predicted value; NPV, negative predictive value.
| Imaging Modality | Dual-Isotope ( | FDG PET/CT ( |
|---|---|---|
| TP | 13 | 14 |
| FP | 1 | 10 |
| TN | 30 | 24 |
| FN | 0 | 0 |
| Sensitivity [95% CI] | 1.00 [0.75;1.00] | 1.00 [0.77;1.00] |
| Specificity [95% CI] | 0.97 [0.83;1.00] | 0.71 [0.53;0.85] |
| PPV [95% CI] | 0.93 [0.66;1.00] | 0.58 [0.45;0.70] |
| NPV [95% CI] | 1.00 [0.88;1.00] | 1.00 [0.86;1.00] |
| Accuracy [95% CI] | 0.98 [0.88;0.99] | 0.79 [0.65;0.90] |
Diagnostic performance of dual-isotope SPECT/CT and FDG PET/CT when correcting confidence intervals.
| Imaging Modality | Sensitivity | Specificity |
|---|---|---|
| Dual-isotope | 0.88 | 0.92 |
| FDG PET/CT | 0.89 | 0.71 |
Equivocal MDT results categorized to the opposite decision among decisions based on dual-isotope and FDG PET/CT imaging as the “worst-case scenario”. 1, PJI suspected; 0, PJI not suspected; 2, equivocal result.
| Patient Nr. | Follow-Up MDT Results | FDG PET/CT Results | Dual-Isotope Results | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Primary | “Worst-Case” | |||
| 33 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| 49 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| 9 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| 12 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| 11 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| 1 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| 21 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
Diagnostic performance of dual-isotope and FDG PET/CT in the “worst-case scenario” with equivocal MDT results categorized to the opposite decision among decisions based on dual-isotope and FDG PET/CT scans. TP, true positive; FP, false positive; TN, true negative; FN, false negative. CI, confidence interval; n, number of performed tests; PPV, positive predicted value; NPV, negative predictive value.
| Imaging Modality | Dual-Isotope ( | FDG PET/CT ( |
|---|---|---|
| TP | 13 | 14 |
| FP | 4 | 13 |
| TN | 30 | 24 |
| FN | 4 | 4 |
| Sensitivity [95% CI] | 0.76 [0.50;0.93] | 0.78 [0.52;0.94] |
| Specificity [95% CI] | 0.88 [0.73;0.97] | 0.65 [0.47;0.80] |
| PPV [95% CI] | 0.76 [0.50;0.93] | 0.52 [0.32;0.71] |
| NPV [95% CI] | 0.88 [0.73;0.97] | 0.86 [0.67;0.96] |