Skip to main content
American Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging logoLink to American Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging
. 2025 Aug 15;15(4):153–157. doi: 10.62347/IXKG9158

18F-NaF PET/CT for early detection of osteoporosis in the lumbar spine: two case reports

Shiv Patil 1,2, Nirmal Patel 2, Eric Teichner 1,2, William Lee 1,3, Ehsan Ranjbar 1, Alexander Gerlach 1, Robert Subtirelu 1, Lancelot Herpin 1, Thomas Werner 1, Poul Flemming Høilund-Carlsen 4,5, Abass Alavi 1
PMCID: PMC12444402  PMID: 40980739

Abstract

Osteoporosis is a highly prevalent skeletal disease involving a pathophysiology of altered bone turnover. Positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) imaging with 18F-sodium fluoride (NaF) can visualize metabolic alterations in bone that precede clinical manifestations or structural alterations and thus may serve a role in the early detection and monitoring of osteoporosis. We present two non-oncological case reports demonstrating different metabolic changes in early and advanced disease stages as assessed by 18F-NaF PET/CT that cannot be appreciated by conventional structural imaging alone, supporting a potential clinical application of 18F-NaF PET/CT for early detection and monitoring of osteoporosis in the lumbar spine.

Keywords: Osteoporosis, lumbar spine, 18F-sodium fluoride (NaF), positron emission tomography (PET), computed tomography (CT)

Introduction

Osteoporosis is a systemic skeletal disease characterized by reduced bone mineral density and altered bone microstructure that predisposes patients to low-impact fragility fractures [1,2]. The global prevalence of osteoporosis is estimated to be greater than 200 million, affecting more than 70% of people over the age of 80 [3,4]. Given the progressive nature of this disease, the early detection of osteoporosis is critical for initiating timely therapeutic interventions and optimizing patient management [5].

Dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) remains the most frequently used imaging modality to quantify changes in bone mineral density [6]. It is a standard method for measuring bone mineral density (BMD), used to diagnose osteoporosis and assess fracture risk. The results are expressed as a T-score, which compares a person’s bone density to that of a healthy young adult, with a T-score of -2.5 or below indicating osteoporosis [7]. While DXA enables detection of structural osteoporotic deterioration, this imaging approach does not capture microscopic changes in bone metabolism that potentially hold clinical relevance in identifying early-stage pathology or disease progression [8]. Imaging the pathophysiological changes that underlie the development of osteoporosis may improve methods of quantifying bone degeneration, fracture risk, and response to treatment.

18F-sodium fluoride (18F-NaF) positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) is a molecular imaging modality capable of detecting active metabolic activity in bone [9]. The dissociated fluoride ion binds exposed hydroxyapatite crystal in vivo, thereby providing a quantitative measure of osteoblastic and osteoclastic activity [10]. While conventionally used to evaluate skeletal tumors, 18F-NaF has gained interest in the imaging of bone degeneration that precedes the onset of structural alterations visible on conventional imaging.

Below we present two non-oncological case reports demonstrating the potential of 18F-NaF PET/CT to identify early metabolic alterations of the lumbar spine, showcasing its utility in the early detection and monitoring of osteoporosis.

Case 1

A 25-year-old female with a body mass index (BMI) of 28.1 kg/m2, no history of cardiovascular disease (CVD), a smoking history of 5 pack-years, and active alcohol consumption was recruited from the Cardiovascular Molecular Calcification Assessed by 18F-NaF PET CT (CAMONA) clinical trial (NCT01724749) [11] as a healthy volunteer. The subject underwent 18F-NaF PET/CT imaging 90 minutes after radiotracer injection (Figure 1). The mean standardized uptake value (SUVmean) for 18F-NaF in the trabecular region of each lumbar vertebral body (VB) was assessed by manual delineation of a region of interest (ROI) using OsiriX MD software (Pixmeo, Bernex, Switzerland). Specifically, the ROI was created by applying the oval function the center of the trabecular bone region throughout the consecutive axial PET/CT slices of L1 to S1 vertebrae. The size of the ROI was kept constant and placed to avoid cortical bone, vertebral arch, and facet joints. The average SUV of all voxels in the ROIs was then calculated to determine 18F-NaF SUVmean for each VB. To determine lumbar spine density, the same ROIs was used to calculate the average CT Hounsfield unit (HU) value in each VB. The following thresholds were used to distinguish lumbar osteoporosis with 88.5% specificity and 60.8% sensitivity: L1 ≤ 110 HU or L2 ≤ 100 HU or L3 ≤ 85 HU or L4 ≤ 80 HU [12].

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Sagittal views of 18F-NaF PET (A), CT (B), and combined 18F-NaF PET/CT (C) for Case 1.

The subject’s lumbar spine 18F-NaF SUVmean and radiodensity on CT were among the highest noted in the entire cohort of patients assessed (Table 1). The high HU values suggest no structural abnormalities.

Table 1.

18F-NaF SUVmean and CT radiodensity values for Case 1

Vertebral Level 18F-NaF SUVmean Radiodensity (HU)
L1 10.76 213
L2 12.63 237
L3 13.88 229
L4 13.95 200
L5 14.04 191
S1 7.64 301

Case 2

A 67-year-old female with a BMI of 22.7 kg/m2, history of CVD and a high Framingham Risk Score of 25.4%, smoking history of 8 pack-years, and active alcohol consumption was recruited from the CAMONA clinical trial. She was enrolled as an “at-risk” patient for CVD and underwent 18F-NaF PET/CT imaging 90 minutes after radiotracer injection (Figure 2).

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Sagittal views of 18F-NaF PET (A), CT (B), and combined 18F-NaF PET/CT (C) for Case 2.

This patient’s 18F-NaF SUVmean values and CT radiodensity in the lumbar spine were among the lowest in the entire cohort of subjects who were assessed (Table 2). The low HU values are consistent with osteoporotic degeneration in all vertebrae but L4, which was borderline normal [12].

Table 2.

18F-NaF SUVmean and CT radiodensity values for Case 2

Vertebral Level 18F-NaF SUVmean Radiodensity (HU)
L1 5.91 105
L2 6.46 83
L3 7.43 83
L4 7.04 81
L5 6.58 104
S1 5.35 67

Discussion

These case reports demonstrate the utility of 18F-NaF PET/CT imaging in evaluating progressive osteoporotic changes of the lumbar spine. Case 1, a 25-year-old female with minimal osteoporotic risk factors, demonstrated elevated 18F-NaF uptake and high lumbar spine density, indicating robust bone turnover and active remodeling prior to structural alterations. In Case 2, a 67-year-old female exhibited markedly low 18F-NaF uptake, likely reflecting trabecular bone loss as evidenced by reduced CT radiodensity. Decreased trabecular bone volume reduces the availability of hydroxyapatite for fluoride binding, resulting in low 18F-NaF uptake [9].

The subjects’ risk factors for osteoporosis are pertinent to the observed findings. The subject in Case 1 was also positive for several osteoporotic risk factors, supporting the finding of elevated 18F-NaF SUVmean. Her young age may explain the absence of structural changes on CT. The subject in Case 2 was an elderly female with a history of CVD, smoking, and alcohol use - factors known to elevate the risk of developing osteoporosis. Aging and female sex can predispose to bone loss due to the decline in estrogen levels post-menopause, which accelerates trabecular bone resorption [13]. A history of CVD has been associated with osteoporosis due to common pathophysiological mechanisms and shared risk factors [14]. Smoking and alcohol consumption both decrease bone mineral density through alterations in bone formation and resorption [15,16]. Information on the use of bone-active medications was not recorded for either patient, which may also influence patterns of radiotracer uptake [17].

Several studies have investigated the use of 18F-NaF PET to detect degenerative changes in the spine and other regions susceptible to osteoporosis. In a study of 32 pre- and post-menopausal women, Kurata et al. observed an inverse correlation between 18F-NaF maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) in the lumbar spine and age. A direct correlation between 18F-NaF SUVmax in the humeral shaft and age was also noted [18]. Rhodes et al. calculated the Bone Metabolism Score (BMS) as the ratio of 18F-NaF SUV in the femoral neck to that of the total bone, demonstrating inverse correlations between BMS and age [19]. The findings in our cases add to a growing body of evidence indicating a promising clinical application of 18F-NaF PET/CT as a biomarker of osteoporosis.

While DXA remains the gold standard for imaging osteoporosis, this modality has limitations including a low sensitivity for estimating fracture risk [20-22]. Quantitative CT has also been utilized to screen osteoporosis, as attenuation values correlate with traditional bone mineral density measurements [23]. DXA and other structural imaging approaches, however, cannot detect the molecular changes occurring in bone that precede the onset of structural pathology (e.g., vertebral fractures) or clinical symptoms. 18F-NaF PET/CT may thus serve a complementary role as a measure of bone metabolism to enhance methods of identifying osteoporosis. As suggested by our cases, clinical applications of 18F-NaF PET/CT could involve early detection of the vulnerable patient as well as monitoring progression of disease. The Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) calculates the 10-year risk of osteoporotic fractures in patients based on DXA-derived bone mineral density and clinical factors [24]. Incorporating metabolic measurements from 18F-NaF PET/CT may provide a comprehensive assessment of bone quality and improve the predictive accuracy of FRAX.

Moreover, 18F-NaF PET/CT may have a practical role as an opportunistic screening tool for the oncological patient population. In a study of 105 males with prostate cancer who underwent 18F-NaF PET/CT imaging, Chesnais et al. identified decreased 18F-NaF SUVmean and SUVmax in the thoracic spine of patients with fractures relative to those without fractures [25]. However, no differences in CT HU of the cervical, thoracic, lumbar, or sacral regions were found. A separate study by Huang et al. found a direct correlation between 18F-NaF uptake and DXA-derived bone mineral density in the lumbar spine of 199 oncological patients [26]. 18F-NaF PET/CT may thus provide a quantitative measure of the degree of osteoporosis including early phase osteoporosis that is not yet apparent on CT.

The case reports presented in this study provide a descriptive evaluation of 18F-NaF PET/CT’s promising role as a biomarker for osteoporosis. While the limited sample size precludes definitive assessments, we provide a proof-of-concept for future investigations to generate hypotheses on the application of this radiotracer for monitoring disease progression. Furthermore, the subjects analyzed in the CAMONA trial were primarily evaluated for cardiovascular disease: our analysis of bone quality was exploratory, and few subjects in the entire patient population met the criteria for osteoporosis. A future study of patients with a high risk of developing osteoporosis (e.g., elderly women) is warranted to provide further detail on 18F-NaF PET/CT’s clinical utility.

Conclusion

18F-NaF PET/CT imaging reveals metabolic changes affecting the bone microstructure of patients at risk for osteoporosis. This modality may serve a future role as an early diagnostic measure of osteoporosis and biomarker of disease progression. Further research, particularly longitudinal studies that can assess the relationship between 18F-NaF uptake in the spine and patient outcomes, is needed to validate the clinical application of this modality.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the staff and study participants of the CAMONA clinical trial for their valuable contributions. And the study was supported by the Anna Marie and Christian Rasmussen’s Memorial Foundation, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark, and the Jørgen and Gisela Thrane’s Philanthropic Research Foundation, Broager, Denmark.

Disclosure of conflict of interest

None.

References

  • 1.Heaney RP. Pathophysiology of osteoporosis. Endocrinol Metab Clin North Am. 1998;27:255–265. doi: 10.1016/s0889-8529(05)70004-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Varacallo MA, Fox EJ. Osteoporosis and its complications. Med Clin North Am. 2014;98:817–831. xii–xiii. doi: 10.1016/j.mcna.2014.03.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Salari N, Darvishi N, Bartina Y, Larti M, Kiaei A, Hemmati M, Shohaimi S, Mohammadi M. Global prevalence of osteoporosis among the world older adults: a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis. J Orthop Surg Res. 2021;16:669. doi: 10.1186/s13018-021-02821-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Shen Y, Huang X, Wu J, Lin X, Zhou X, Zhu Z, Pan X, Xu J, Qiao J, Zhang T, Ye L, Jiang H, Ren Y, Shan PF. The global burden of osteoporosis, low bone mass, and its related fracture in 204 countries and territories, 1990-2019. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) 2022;13:882241. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2022.882241. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Tucci JR. Importance of early diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis to prevent fractures. Am J Manag Care. 2006;12(Suppl):S181–S190. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Link TM. Osteoporosis imaging: state of the art and advanced imaging. Radiology. 2012;263:3–17. doi: 10.1148/radiol.12110462. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Kanis JA. Diagnosis of osteoporosis and assessment of fracture risk. Lancet. 2002;359:1929–1936. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(02)08761-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Park PSU, Raynor WY, Sun Y, Werner TJ, Rajapakse CS, Alavi A. 18F-sodium fluoride PET as a diagnostic modality for metabolic, autoimmune, and osteogenic bone disorders: cellular mechanisms and clinical applications. Int J Mol Sci. 2021;22:6504. doi: 10.3390/ijms22126504. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Sheppard AJ, Paravastu SS, Wojnowski NM, Osamor CC 3rd, Farhadi F, Collins MT, Saboury B. Emerging role of 18F-NaF PET/computed tomographic imaging in osteoporosis: a potential upgrade to the osteoporosis toolbox. PET Clin. 2023;18:1–20. doi: 10.1016/j.cpet.2022.09.001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Puri T, Frost ML, Moore AEB, Choudhury A, Vinjamuri S, Mahajan A, Fynbo C, Vrist M, Theil J, Kairemo K, Wong J, Zaidi H, Revheim ME, Werner TJ, Alavi A, Cook GJR, Blake GM. Utility of a simplified [18F] sodium fluoride PET imaging method to quantify bone metabolic flux for a wide range of clinical applications. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) 2023;14:1236881. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2023.1236881. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Blomberg BA, De Jong PA, Thomassen A, Lam MGE, Vach W, Olsen MH, Mali WPTM, Narula J, Alavi A, Høilund-Carlsen PF. Thoracic aorta calcification but not inflammation is associated with increased cardiovascular disease risk: results of the CAMONA study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017;44:249–258. doi: 10.1007/s00259-016-3552-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Zou D, Li W, Deng C, Du G, Xu N. The use of CT Hounsfield unit values to identify the undiagnosed spinal osteoporosis in patients with lumbar degenerative diseases. Eur Spine J. 2019;28:1758–1766. doi: 10.1007/s00586-018-5776-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Cheng CH, Chen LR, Chen KH. Osteoporosis due to hormone imbalance: an overview of the effects of estrogen deficiency and glucocorticoid overuse on bone turnover. Int J Mol Sci. 2022;23:1376. doi: 10.3390/ijms23031376. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Farhat GN, Cauley JA. The link between osteoporosis and cardiovascular disease. Clin Cases Miner Bone Metab. 2008;5:19–34. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Yoon V, Maalouf NM, Sakhaee K. The effects of smoking on bone metabolism. Osteoporos Int. 2012;23:2081–2092. doi: 10.1007/s00198-012-1940-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Sampson HW. Alcohol and other factors affecting osteoporosis risk in women. Alcohol Res Health. 2002;26:292–298. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Frost ML, Moore AE, Siddique M, Blake GM, Laurent D, Borah B, Schramm U, Valentin MA, Pellas TC, Marsden PK, Schleyer PJ, Fogelman I. (18)F-fluoride PET as a noninvasive imaging biomarker for determining treatment efficacy of bone active agents at the hip: a prospective, randomized, controlled clinical study. J Bone Miner Res. 2013;28:1337–1347. doi: 10.1002/jbmr.1862. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Kurata S, Shizukuishi K, Tateishi U, Yoneyama T, Hino A, Ishibashi M, Inoue T. Age-related changes in pre- and postmenopausal women investigated with 18F-fluoride PET-a preliminary study. Skeletal Radiol. 2012;41:947–53. doi: 10.1007/s00256-011-1318-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Rhodes S, Batzdorf A, Sorci O, Peng M, Jankelovits A, Hornyak J, An J, Noël PB, Høilund-Carlsen PF, Alavi A, Rajapakse CS. Assessment of femoral neck bone metabolism using 18F-sodium fluoride PET/CT imaging. Bone. 2020;136:115351. doi: 10.1016/j.bone.2020.115351. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Deshpande N, Hadi MS, Lillard JC, Passias PG, Linzey JR, Saadeh YS, LaBagnara M, Park P. Alternatives to DEXA for the assessment of bone density: a systematic review of the literature and future recommendations. J Neurosurg Spine. 2023;38:436–445. doi: 10.3171/2022.11.SPINE22875. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Choksi P, Jepsen KJ, Clines GA. The challenges of diagnosing osteoporosis and the limitations of currently available tools. Clin Diabetes Endocrinol. 2018;4:12. doi: 10.1186/s40842-018-0062-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Bansal S, Pecina JL, Merry SP, Kennel KA, Maxson J, Quigg S, Thacher TD. US preventative services task force FRAX threshold has a low sensitivity to detect osteoporosis in women ages 50-64 years. Osteoporos Int. 2015;26:1429–1433. doi: 10.1007/s00198-015-3026-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Palmer W, Bancroft L, Bonar F, Choi JA, Cotten A, Griffith JF, Robinson P, Pfirrmann CWA. Glossary of terms for musculoskeletal radiology. Skeletal Radiol. 2020;49(Suppl 1):1–33. doi: 10.1007/s00256-020-03465-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Donaldson MG, Palermo L, Schousboe JT, Ensrud KE, Hochberg MC, Cummings SR. FRAX and risk of vertebral fractures: the fracture intervention trial. J Bone Miner Res. 2009;24:1793–1799. doi: 10.1359/jbmr.090511. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Chesnais H, Bastin N, Miguez S, Kargilis D, Kalluri A, Terry A, Rajapakse CS. Predicting fractures using vertebral 18F-NaF uptake in prostate cancer patients. J Bone Metab. 2023;30:329–337. doi: 10.11005/jbm.2023.30.4.329. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Huang J, Li J, Li Z, Qin J, Mu X, Fu W. Assessing osteoporosis and bone mineral density through 18F-NaF uptake at lumbar spine. Ann Nucl Med. 2025;39:150–157. doi: 10.1007/s12149-024-01982-w. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from American Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging are provided here courtesy of e-Century Publishing Corporation

RESOURCES