Molecular Imaging and Biology

, Volume 12, Issue 3, pp 335–342 | Cite as

Diagnostic Performance of FDG-PET, MRI, and Plain Film Radiography (PFR) for the Diagnosis of Osteomyelitis in the Diabetic Foot

  • Asad Nawaz
  • Drew A. Torigian
  • Evan S. Siegelman
  • Sandip Basu
  • Timothy Chryssikos
  • Abass Alavi
Research Article



The early and accurate diagnosis of osteomyelitis in the diabetic foot is essential to provide appropriate treatment and obviate long-term complications of the disease. The currently employed non-invasive imaging modalities such as plain film radiography (PFR) lack the sensitivity to accurately exclude osteomyelitis, while magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is limited by its low specificity and contraindications in certain patients. Therefore, accurate non-invasive detection of osteomyelitis in the diabetic foot remains a challenge. [18F]-2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose (FDG)-positron emission tomography (PET) has been proven useful in other settings to detect infection. In this ongoing prospective study, we assessed the diagnostic performance of FDG-PET to diagnose osteomyelitis in the diabetic foot and compared it with that of MRI and PFR.


Patients who met the prespecified criteria for complicated diabetic foot underwent FDG-PET, MRI, and PFR of the feet. Each imaging study was then interpreted in a blinded fashion for presence of osteomyelitis or other abnormalities. The gold standard for diagnosis in each patient was based on surgical, microbiological, and clinical follow-up results.


One hundred ten consecutive patients have been enrolled to date into this prospective project. FDG-PET correctly diagnosed osteomyelitis in 21 of 26 patients and correctly excluded it in 74 of 80, with sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy of 81%, 93%, 78%, 94%, and 90%, respectively. MRI correctly diagnosed osteomyelitis in 20 of 22 and correctly excluded it in 56 of 72, with sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy of 91%, 78%, 56%, 97%, and 81%, respectively. PFR correctly diagnosed osteomyelitis in 15 of 24 and correctly excluded it in 65 of 75, with sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy of 63%, 87%, 60%, 88%, and 81%, respectively.


FDG-PET is a highly specific imaging modality for the diagnosis of osteomyelitis in diabetic foot and, therefore, should be considered to be a useful complimentary imaging modality with MRI. In the setting where MRI is contraindicated, the high sensitivity and specificity of FDG-PET justifies its use after a negative or inconclusive PFR to aid an accurate diagnosis.

Key words

FDG-PET Osteomyelitis Diabetic foot MRI 


  1. 1.
    Caputo GM, Cavanagh PR, Ulbrecht JS, Gibbons GW, Karchmer AW (1994) Assessment and management of foot disease in patients with diabetes. N Engl J Med 331:854–860CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Frykberg RG, Veves A (1996) Diabetic foot infections. Diabetes Metab Rev 12:255–270CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    McNeely MJ, Boyko EJ, Ahroni JH et al (1995) The independent contributions of diabetic neuropathy and vasculopathy in foot ulceration. How great are the risks? Diabetes Care 18:216–219CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wagner FW Jr (1981) The dysvascular foot: a system for diagnosis and treatment. Foot Ankle 2:64–122PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wheat J (1985) Diagnostic strategies in osteomyelitis. Am J Med 78:218–224CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zhuang H, Alavi A (2002) 18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomographic imaging in the detection and monitoring of infection and inflammation. Semin Nucl Med 32:47–59CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zhuang H, Yu JQ, Alavi A (2005) Applications of fluorodeoxyglucose-PET imaging in the detection of infection and inflammation and other benign disorders. Radiol Clin North Am 43:121–134CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kumar R, Basu S, Torigian D, Anand V, Zhuang H, Alavi A (2008) Role of modern imaging techniques for diagnosis of infection in the era of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography. Clin Microbiol Rev 21:209–224CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Feldman EL, Stevens MJ, Thomas PK, Brown MB, Canal N, Greene DA (1994) A practical two-step quantitative clinical and electrophysiological assessment for the diagnosis and staging of diabetic neuropathy. Diabetes Care 17:1281–1289CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Reiber GE, Vileikyte L, Boyko EJ et al (1999) Causal pathways for incident lower-extremity ulcers in patients with diabetes from two settings. Diabetes Care 22:157–162CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schwegler B, Stumpe KD, Weishaupt D et al (2008) Unsuspected osteomyelitis is frequent in persistent diabetic foot ulcer and better diagnosed by MRI than by 18F-FDG PET or 99mTc-MOAB. J Intern Med 263:99–106PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Yuh WT, Corson JD, Baraniewski HM et al (1989) Osteomyelitis of the foot in diabetic patients: evaluation with plain film, 99mTc-MDP bone scintigraphy, and MR imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 152:795–800PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gold RH, Tong DJ, Crim JR, Seeger LL (1995) Imaging the diabetic foot. Skeletal Radiol 24:563–571CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jeffcoate WJ, Lipsky BA (2004) Controversies in diagnosing and managing osteomyelitis of the foot in diabetes. Clin Infect Dis 39(Suppl 2):S115–S122CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Becker W (1999) Imaging osteomyelitis and the diabetic foot. Q J Nucl Med 43:9–20PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sella EJ, Grosser DM (2003) Imaging modalities of the diabetic foot. Clin Podiatr Med Surg 20:729–740CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Craig JG, Amin MB, Wu K et al (1997) Osteomyelitis of the diabetic foot: MR imaging-pathologic correlation. Radiology 203:849–855PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Erdman WA, Tamburro F, Jayson HT, Weatherall PT, Ferry KB, Peshock RM (1991) Osteomyelitis: characteristics and pitfalls of diagnosis with MR imaging. Radiology 180:533–539PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lipman BT, Collier BD, Carrera GF et al (1998) Detection of osteomyelitis in the neuropathic foot: nuclear medicine, MRI and conventional radiography. Clin Nucl Med 23:77–82CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Morrison WB, Schweitzer ME, Wapner KL, Hecht PJ, Gannon FH, Behm WR (1995) Osteomyelitis in feet of diabetics: clinical accuracy, surgical utility, and cost-effectiveness of MR imaging. Radiology 196:557–564PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kaim A, Ledermann HP, Bongartz G, Messmer P, Muller-Brand J, Steinbrich W (2000) Chronic post-traumatic osteomyelitis of the lower extremity: comparison of magnetic resonance imaging and combined bone scintigraphy/immunoscintigraphy with radiolabelled monoclonal antigranulocyte antibodies. Skeletal Radiol 29:378–386CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Morrison WB, Schweitzer ME, Batte WG, Radack DP, Russel KM (1998) Osteomyelitis of the foot: relative importance of primary and secondary MR imaging signs. Radiology 207:625–632PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ledermann HP, Schweitzer ME, Morrison WB (2002) Nonenhancing tissue on MR imaging of pedal infection: characterization of necrotic tissue and associated limitations for diagnosis of osteomyelitis and abscess. AJR Am J Roentgenol 178:215–222PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Basu S, Chryssikos T, Houseni M et al (2007) 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? Nucl Med Commun 28:465–472CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Santiago Restrepo C, Gimenez CR, McCarthy K (2003) Imaging of osteomyelitis and musculoskeletal soft tissue infections: current concepts. Rheum Dis Clin North Am 29:89–109CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Academy of Molecular Imaging 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Asad Nawaz
    • 1
  • Drew A. Torigian
    • 1
  • Evan S. Siegelman
    • 1
  • Sandip Basu
    • 1
  • Timothy Chryssikos
    • 1
  • Abass Alavi
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Nuclear MedicineDepartment of Radiology, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Hospital of the University of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations