Skeletal Radiology

, Volume 47, Issue 6, pp 805–810 | Cite as

Quantification of osteoblastic activity in epiphyseal growth plates by quantitative bone SPECT/CT

  • Tomohiko Yamane
  • Ichiei Kuji
  • Akira Seto
  • Ichiro Matsunari
Scientific Article



Quantifying the function of the epiphyseal plate is worthwhile for the management of children with growth disorders. The aim of this retrospective study was to quantify the osteoblastic activity at the epiphyseal plate using the quantitative bone SPECT/CT.

Materials and methods

We enrolled patients under the age of 20 years who received Tc-99m hydroxymethylene diphosphonate bone scintigraphy acquired by a quantitative SPECT/CT scanner. The images were reconstructed by ordered subset conjugate-gradient minimizer, and the uptake on the distal margin of the femur was quantified by peak standardized uptake value (SUVpeak). A public database of standard body height was used to calculate growth velocities (cm/year).


Fifteen patients (6.9–19.7 years, 9 female, 6 male) were enrolled and a total of 25 legs were analyzed. SUVpeak in the epiphyseal plate was 18.9 ± 2.4 (average ± standard deviation) in the subjects under 15 years and decreased gradually by aging. The SUVpeak correlated significantly with the age- and sex-matched growth velocity obtained from the database (R2 = 0.83, p < 0.0001).


The SUV measured by quantitative bone SPECT/CT was increased at the epiphyseal plates of children under the age of 15 years in comparison with the older group, corresponding to higher osteoblastic activity. Moreover, this study suggested a correlation between growth velocity and the SUV. Although this is a small retrospective pilot study, the objective and quantitative values measured by the quantitative bone SPECT/CT has the potential to improve the management of children with growth disorder.


Epiphyseal plate Tc-99m Hydroxymethylene diphosphonate xSPECT bone Ordered subset conjugate gradient minimizer Standardized uptake value 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.


  1. 1.
    Vance ML, Mauras N. Growth hormone therapy in adults and children. N Engl J Med. 1999;341(16):1206–16.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Crowder C, Austin D. Age ranges of epiphyseal fusion in the distal tibia and fibula of contemporary males and females. J Forensic Sci. 2005;50(5):1001–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Greulich WW, Pyle SI. Radiographic atlas of skeletal development of the hand and wrist. Stanford: Stanford University Press; 1959.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tanner JM. Assessment of skeletal maturity and prediction of adult height (TW3 method). Philadelphia: Saunders; 2001.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Thodberg HH, Kreiborg S, Juul A, Pedersen KD. The BoneXpert method for automated determination of skeletal maturity. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2009;28(1):52–66.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cole TJ, Rousham EK, Hawley NL, Cameron N, Norris SA, Pettifor JM. Ethnic and sex differences in skeletal maturation among the birth to twenty cohort in South Africa. Arch Dis Child. 2015;100(2):138–43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Thodberg HH, Savendahl L. Validation and reference values of automated bone age determination for four ethnicities. Acad Radiol. 2010;17(11):1425–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Spoudeas HA. Growth and endocrine function after chemotherapy and radiotherapy in childhood. Eur J Cancer. 2002;38(13):1748–59. discussion 1760-1741CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kelly HW, Van Natta ML, Covar RA, Tonascia J, Green RP, Strunk RC. Effect of long-term corticosteroid use on bone mineral density in children: a prospective longitudinal assessment in the childhood asthma management program (CAMP) study. Pediatrics. 2008;122(1):e53–61.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Shalaby-Rana E, Majd M. (99m)Tc-MDP scintigraphic findings in children with leukemia: value of early and delayed whole-body imaging. J Nucl Med. 2001;42(6):878–83.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Armstrong IS, Hoffmann SA. Activity concentration measurements using a conjugate gradient (Siemens xSPECT) reconstruction algorithm in SPECT/CT. Nucl Med Commun. 2016;37(11):1212–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cachovan M, Vija AH, Hornegger J, Kuwert T. Quantification of 99mTc-DPD concentration in the lumbar spine with SPECT/CT. EJNMMI Res. 2013;3(1):45.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bailey DL, Willowson KP. An evidence-based review of quantitative SPECT imaging and potential clinical applications. J Nucl Med. 2013;54(1):83–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bailey DL, Willowson KP. Quantitative SPECT/CT: SPECT joins PET as a quantitative imaging modality. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;41(Suppl 1):S17–25.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Suh MS, Lee WW, Kim YK, Yun PY, Kim SE. Maximum standardized uptake value of (99m)Tc Hydroxymethylene Diphosphonate SPECT/CT for the evaluation of temporomandibular joint disorder. Radiology. 2016;280(3):890–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gnesin S, Leite Ferreira P, Malterre J, Laub P, Prior JO, Verdun FR. Phantom validation of Tc-99m absolute quantification in a SPECT/CT commercial device. Comput Math Methods Med. 2016;2016:4360371.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Koizumi K, Masaki H, Matsuda H, Uchiyama M, Okuno M, Oguma E, et al. Japanese consensus guidelines for pediatric nuclear medicine. Part 1: Pediatric radiopharmaceutical administered doses (JSNM pediatric dosage card). Part 2: technical considerations for pediatric nuclear medicine imaging procedures. Ann Nucl Med. 2014;28(5):498–503.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    International Commission on Radiological Protection. Radiation dose to patients from radiopharmaceuticals (Addendum to ICRP Publication 53). ICRP Publication 80. Ann ICRP. 1998; 28(3).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Saltybaeva N, Jafari ME, Hupfer M, Kalender WA. Estimates of effective dose for CT scans of the lower extremities. Radiology. 2014;273(1):153–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. Annual Report of School Health Statistics Research. Tokyo, Japan: Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology 2015.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Karlberg J. On the construction of the infancy-childhood-puberty growth standard. Acta Paediatr Scand Suppl. 1989;356:26–37.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    International Commission on Radiological Protection. Basic anatomical and physiological data for use in radiological protection: reference values. A report of age- and gender-related differences in the anatomical and physiological characteristics of reference individuals. ICRP publication 89. Ann ICRP. 2002;32(3-4):5–265.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Tanaka T. Bone age atlas for Japanese children. Tokyo: Medical View; 2011.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mouden M, Timmer JR, Ottervanger JP, Reiffers S, Oostdijk AH, Knollema S, et al. Impact of a new ultrafast CZT SPECT camera for myocardial perfusion imaging: fewer equivocal results and lower radiation dose. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012;39(6):1048–55.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© ISS 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Nuclear MedicineSaitama Medical University International Medical CenterHidakaJapan
  2. 2.Division of Nuclear Medicine, Department of RadiologySaitama Medical University HospitalMoroyamaJapan

Personalised recommendations