A large retrospective single-centre study to define the best image acquisition protocols and interpretation criteria for white blood cell scintigraphy with 99mTc-HMPAO-labelled leucocytes in musculoskeletal infections

  • Andor W. J. M. Glaudemans
  • Erik F. J. de Vries
  • Liliane E. M. Vermeulen
  • Riemer H. J. A. Slart
  • Rudi A. J. O. Dierckx
  • Alberto Signore
Original Article



The diagnosis of infection is often based on clinical, pathological and microbiological results. However, these investigations lack specificity. White blood cell (WBC) scintigraphy is considered the gold standard nuclear imaging technique for diagnosing infections in bone and soft tissues (except spondylodiscitis). However, image acquisition and interpretation criteria differ amongst centres throughout the world, leading to differences in reported results. The aim of this study was to identify the most accurate WBC scintigraphy acquisition and interpretation protocols for diagnosis of bone and soft tissue infections.


Included in this retrospective study were 297 patients with suspected bone or soft tissue infection who underwent WBC scintigraphy with 99mTc-HMPAO-labelled leucocytes between 2009 and 2012. Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and positive and negative predictive values of WBC scintigraphy were determined for two different dual time point acquisition protocols (fixed-time acquisition and time decay-corrected acquisition) and five image interpretation methods (visual and semiquantitative with four different reference regions of interest). Final diagnosis was based on pathological and microbiological reports, and when these were not available, on clinical follow-up of at least 6 months.


The best acquisition protocol was 4 h and 20 – 24 h dual time-point acquisition with time decay-corrected acquisition. When using this acquisition protocol, visual qualitative interpretation led to a sensitivity of 85.1 %, a specificity of 97.1 %, a diagnostic accuracy of 94.5 %, a positive predictive value of 88.8 % and a negative predictive value of 95.9 %. For semiquantitative analysis, the best results were found when lesion-to-reference ratios were calculated with the contralateral side as the reference tissue, except for osteomyelitis and infected osteosynthesis, for which the contralateral bone marrow was found to be the best reference tissue. Results of the semiquantitative analyses per se were not better than for visual analysis. In the optimal analysis protocol, scans are first visually evaluated, and if this gives equivocal results, semiquantitative analysis is performed. This strategy resulted in an improved sensitivity of 97.9 %, a specificity of 91.8 % and a diagnostic accuracy of 93.1 %.


WBC scintigraphy for bone and soft-tissue infection is best performed using a dual acquisition protocol at 4 h and at 20–24 h after injection, in which the acquisition time of the scans is corrected for decay. In most patients, visual analysis is sufficient and leads to high diagnostic accuracy. When interpretation by visual analysis is inconclusive, semiquantitative analysis adds accuracy. Based on our results, we propose a flow chart for analysing WBC scintigraphy in musculoskeletal infections.


White blood cell scintigraphy Infection imaging Dual time-point imaging Interpretation criteria Orthopaedic infections 


Conflicts of interest



  1. 1.
    Glaudemans AW, Signore A. FDG-PET/CT in infections: the imaging method of choice? Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010;37:1986–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Glaudemans AW, Galli F, Pacilio M, Signore A. Leukocyte and bacteria imaging in prosthetic joint infection. Eur Cell Mater. 2013;25:61–77.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gotthardt M, Bleeker-Rovers CP, Boerman OC, Oyen WJ. Imaging of inflammation by PET, conventional scintigraphy, and other imaging techniques. J Nucl Med. 2010;51:1937–49.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    van der Bruggen W, Bleeker-Rovers CP, Boerman OC, Gotthardt M, Oyen WJ. PET and SPECT in osteomyelitis and prosthetic bone and joint infections: a systematic review. Semin Nucl Med. 2010;40:3–15.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gemmel F, Van den WH, Love C, Welling MM, Gemmel P, Palestro CJ. Prosthetic joint infections: radionuclide state-of-the-art imaging. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012;39:892–909.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Palestro CJ, Love C, Bhargava KK. Labeled leukocyte imaging: current status and future directions. Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2009;53:105–23.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tondeur MC, Sand A, Ham HH. Interobserver reproducibility in the interpretation of 99mTc-labelled white blood cell scintigraphic images. Nucl Med Commun. 2008;29:1093–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    De Vries EF, Roca M, Jamar F, Israel O, Signore A. Guidelines for the labelling of leucocytes with (99m)Tc-HMPAO. Inflammation/Infection Taskgroup of the European Association of Nuclear Medicine. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010;37:842–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Roca M, De Vries EF, Jamar F, Israel O, Signore A. Guidelines for the labelling of leucocytes with (111)In-oxine. Inflammation/Infection Taskgroup of the European Association of Nuclear Medicine. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010;37:835–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Banoo S, Bell D, Bossuyt P, Herring A, Mabey D, Poole F, et al. Evaluation of diagnostic tests for infectious diseases: general principles. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2010;8:S17–29.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Duet M, Pouchot J, Liote F, Faraggi M. Role for positron emission tomography in skeletal diseases. Joint Bone Spine. 2007;74:14–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Filippi L, Schillaci O. Usefulness of hybrid SPECT/CT in 99mTc-HMPAO-labeled leukocyte scintigraphy for bone and joint infections. J Nucl Med. 2006;47:1908–13.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Larikka MJ, Ahonen AK, Junila JA, Niemela O, Hamalainen MM, Syrjala HP. Extended combined 99mTc-white blood cell and bone imaging improves the diagnostic accuracy in the detection of hip replacement infections. Eur J Nucl Med. 2001;28:288–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Prandini N, Lazzeri E, Rossi B, Erba P, Parisella MG, Signore A. Nuclear medicine imaging of bone infections. Nucl Med Commun. 2006;27:633–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Peters AM. The utility of [99mTc]HMPAO-leukocytes for imaging infection. Semin Nucl Med. 1994;24:110–27.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Signore A, Glaudemans AW. The molecular imaging approach to image infections and inflammation by nuclear medicine techniques. Ann Nucl Med. 2011;25:681–700.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Palestro CJ, Love C, Tronco GG, Tomas MB, Rini JN. Combined labeled leukocyte and technetium 99m sulfur colloid bone marrow imaging for diagnosing musculoskeletal infection. Radiographics. 2006;26:859–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Palestro CJ, Love C, Miller TT. Infection and musculoskeletal conditions: Imaging of musculoskeletal infections. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2006;20:1197–218.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pelosi E, Baiocco C, Pennone M, Migliaretti G, Varetto T, Maiello A, et al. 99mTc-HMPAO-leukocyte scintigraphy in patients with symptomatic total hip or knee arthroplasty: improved diagnostic accuracy by means of semiquantitative evaluation. J Nucl Med. 2004;45:438–44.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Capriotti G, Chianelli M, Signore A. Nuclear medicine imaging of diabetic foot infection: results of meta-analysis. Nucl Med Commun. 2006;27:757–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Familiari D, Glaudemans AW, Vitale V, Prosperi D, Bagni O, Lenza A, et al. Can sequential 18F-FDG PET/CT replace WBC imaging in the diabetic foot? J Nucl Med. 2011;52:1012–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nawaz A, Torigian DA, Siegelman ES, Basu S, Chryssikos T, Alavi A. Diagnostic performance of FDG-PET, MRI, and plain film radiography (PFR) for the diagnosis of osteomyelitis in the diabetic foot. Mol Imaging Biol. 2010;12:335–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andor W. J. M. Glaudemans
    • 1
  • Erik F. J. de Vries
    • 1
  • Liliane E. M. Vermeulen
    • 1
  • Riemer H. J. A. Slart
    • 1
  • Rudi A. J. O. Dierckx
    • 1
  • Alberto Signore
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular ImagingUniversity of Groningen, University Medical Center GroningenGroningenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Nuclear Medicine Unit, Department of Medical-Surgical Sciences and of Translational Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Psychology“Sapienza” UniversityRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations