18F-FDG PET of the hands with a dedicated high-resolution PEM system (arthro-PET): correlation with PET/CT, radiography and clinical parameters
- 285 Downloads
The aim of this study was to prospectively determine the feasibility and compare the novel use of a positron emission mammography (PEM) scanner with standard PET/CT for evaluating hand osteoarthritis (OA) with 18F-FDG.
Institutional review board approval and written informed consent were obtained for this HIPAA-compliant prospective study in which 14 adults referred for oncological 18F-FDG PET/CT underwent dedicated hand PET/CT followed by arthro-PET using the PEM device. Hand radiographs were obtained and scored for the presence and severity of OA. Summed qualitative and quantitative joint glycolytic scores for each modality were compared with the findings on plain radiography and clinical features.
Eight patients with clinical and/or radiographic evidence of OA comprised the OA group (mean age 73 ± 7.7 years). Six patients served as the control group (53.7 ± 9.3 years). Arthro-PET quantitative and qualitative joint glycolytic scores were highly correlated with PET/CT findings in the OA patients (r = 0.86. p = 0.007; r = 0.94, p = 0.001). Qualitative arthro-PET and PET/CT joint scores were significantly higher in the OA patients than in controls (38.7 ± 6.6 vs. 32.2 ± 0.4, p = 0.02; 37.5 ± 5.4 vs. 32.2 ± 0.4, p = 0.03, respectively). Quantitative arthro-PET and PET/CT maximum SUV-lean joint scores were higher in the OA patients, although they did not reach statistical significance (20.8 ± 4.2 vs. 18 ± 1.8, p = 0.13; 22.8 ± 5.38 vs. 20.1 ± 1.54, p= 0.21). By definition, OA patients had higher radiographic joint scores than controls (30.9 ± 31.3 vs. 0, p = 0.03).
Hand imaging using a small field of view PEM system (arthro-PET) with FDG is feasible, performing comparably to PET/CT in assessing metabolic joint activity. Arthro-PET and PET/CT showed higher joint FDG uptake in OA. Further exploration of arthro-PET in arthritis management is warranted.
KeywordsPET/CT Positron emission mammography (PEM) Osteoarthritis (OA) Arthritis 18F-Fluoro- 2-deoxy-D-glucose (FDG)
Conflicts of interest
- 8.Keen HI, Mease PJ, Bingham 3rd CO, Giles JT, Kaeley G, Conaghan PG. Systematic review of MRI, ultrasound, and scintigraphy as outcome measures for structural pathology in interventional therapeutic studies of knee arthritis: focus on responsiveness. J Rheumatol. 2011;38:142–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12.Backhaus M, Kamradt T, Sandrock D, Loreck D, Fritz J, Wolf KJ, et al. Arthritis of the finger joints: a comprehensive approach comparing conventional radiography, scintigraphy, ultrasound, and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Arthritis Rheum. 1999;42:1232–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 20.Polisson RP, Schoenberg OI, Fischman A, Rubin R, Simon LS, Rosenthal D, et al. Use of magnetic resonance imaging and positron emission tomography in the assessment of synovial volume and glucose metabolism in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 1995;38:819–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 21.Beckers C, Jeukens X, Ribbens C, André B, Marcelis S, Leclercq P, et al. (18)F-FDG PET imaging of rheumatoid knee synovitis correlates with dynamic magnetic resonance and sonographic assessments as well as with the serum level of metalloproteinase-3. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2006;33:275–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 39.Draper CE, Quon A, Fredericson M, Besier TF, Delp SL, Beaupre GS, Gold GE. Comparison of MRI and 1 F-NaF PET/CT in patients with patellofemoral pain. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2012;36(4):928-32.Google Scholar
- 40.Bowen SL, Wu Y, Chaudhari AJ, et al. Initial characterization of a dedicated breast PET/CT scanner during human imaging. J Nucl Med. 2009;50:1401-1408.Google Scholar
- 41.Chaudhari AJ, Bowen SL, Burkett GW, et al. High-resolution (18)F-FDG PET with MRI for monitoring response to treatment in rheumatoid arthritis. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010;37:1047.Google Scholar
- 42.Lodge, M. JNM, Meeting Abstracts, 2011;52:433.Google Scholar
- 43.Springer A, Mawlawi OR. Evaluation of the quantitative accuracy of a commercially available positronemission mammography scanner. Med. Phys. 2011;38(4):2132-2139Google Scholar
- 44.Narayanan D, Madsen KS, Kalinyak JE, Berg WA. Interpretation of positron emission mammography and MRI by experienced breast imaging radiologists: performance and observer reproducibility. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;196:971-981Google Scholar
- 45.Tugwell P, Boers M, Brooks P, Simon L, Strand V, Idzerda L. OMERACT: An international initiative to improve outcome measurement in rheumatology. Trials. 2007;8:38. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-8-38