18-F flourodeoxy glucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography imaging: A viable alternative to three phase bone scan in evaluating diabetic foot complications?

Background: This paper is based on the initial findings from a prospective ongoing study to evaluate the efficacy of flourodeoxy glucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography (FDG-PET CT) in diabetic foot evaluation. Objective: The aim was to compare the diagnostic accuracies of three phase bone scan (TPBS) and FDG PET-CT (FDG-PET) in diabetic foot evaluation. Methods: Seventy-nine patients with complicated diabetic foot (osteomyelitis/cellulitis, Charcot's neuropathy) were prospectively investigated. TPBS (15 mci methylene di phosphonate [MDP] intravenous [IV]), followed by FDG-PET (5 mci IV) within 5 days were performed in all patients. Based on referral indication, patients grouped into Group I, n = 36, (?osteomyelitis/cellulitis) and Group II, n = 43 (?Charcot's neuropathy). Interpretation was based on intensity, extent, pattern of MDP and FDG uptake (standardized uptake value) along with CT correlation. Findings were compared with final diagnostic outcome based on bone/soft tissue culture in Group I and clinical, radiological or scintigraphic followup in Group II. Results: Group I: For diagnosing osteomyelitis, TP: TN: FP: FN were 14:5:2:2 by FDG PET and 13:02:05:03 by TPBS respectively. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value (NPV) of FDG-PET were 87.5%, 71%, 87.5% and 71% and 81.25%, 28.5%, 72% and 40% for TPBS, respectively. Group II: charcot's: cellulitis: Normal were 22:14:7 by FDG PET and 32:5:6 by TPBS, respectively. Conclusion: Flourodeoxy glucose PET-CT has a higher specificity and NPV than TPBS in diagnosing pedal osteomyelitis. TPBS, being highly sensitive is more useful than FDG-PET in detecting Charcot's neuropathy.

[1]  Z. Keidar,et al.  FDG PET/CT imaging in the diagnosis of osteomyelitis in the diabetic foot , 2012, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[2]  A. Alavi,et al.  Diagnostic Performance of FDG-PET, MRI, and Plain Film Radiography (PFR) for the Diagnosis of Osteomyelitis in the Diabetic Foot , 2010, Molecular Imaging and Biology.

[3]  C. Love,et al.  Nuclear medicine and diabetic foot infections. , 2009, Seminars in nuclear medicine.

[4]  N. Safdar,et al.  Diagnostic accuracy of the physical examination and imaging tests for osteomyelitis underlying diabetic foot ulcers: meta-analysis. , 2008, Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

[5]  A. Alavi,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? , 2007, Nuclear medicine communications.

[6]  Ora Israel,et al.  The diabetic foot: initial experience with 18F-FDG PET/CT. , 2005, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[7]  M. Tomas,et al.  Marrow versus infection in the Charcot joint: indium-111 leukocyte and technetium-99m sulfur colloid scintigraphy. , 1998, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[8]  W. Eyler,et al.  Osteomyelitis of the diabetic foot: MR imaging-pathologic correlation. , 1997, Radiology.

[9]  D. Schauwecker Osteomyelitis: diagnosis with In-111-labeled leukocytes. , 1989, Radiology.

[10]  E. Weledji,et al.  The Diabetic Foot , 2015 .

[11]  J. Wheat,et al.  Diagnostic strategies in osteomyelitis. , 1985, The American journal of medicine.