Nontraumatic Chest Wall Pain

Variant: 1 Nontraumatic chest wall pain. No history of malignancy. Initial imaging.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
Radiography chest	Usually Appropriate	☢
US chest	May Be Appropriate	O
Radiography rib views	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢
MRI chest without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI chest without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
Bone scan whole body	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT chest with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT chest without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT chest without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
FDG-PET/CT skull base to mid-thigh	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
WBC scan chest	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢

Variant: 2 Nontraumatic chest wall pain. Known or suspected malignancy. Secondary evaluation after normal chest radiograph. Next imaging study.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
Bone scan whole body	Usually Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT chest with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT chest without IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	☢☢☢
Radiography rib views	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢
MRI chest without and with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
MRI chest without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
FDG-PET/CT skull base to mid-thigh	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
US chest	Usually Not Appropriate	O
CT chest without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
WBC scan chest	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢

Variant: 3 Nontraumatic chest wall pain. Suspected infectious or inflammatory condition. Secondary evaluation after normal chest radiograph. Next imaging study.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
CT chest with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT chest without IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	☢☢☢
US chest	May Be Appropriate	O
MRI chest without and with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
MRI chest without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate (Disagreement)	O
Bone scan whole body	May Be Appropriate (Disagreement)	☢☢☢
FDG-PET/CT skull base to mid-thigh	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
WBC scan chest	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
Radiography rib views	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT chest without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢

Variant: 4 Nontraumatic chest wall pain. History of prior chest intervention. Secondary evaluation after normal chest radiograph. Next imaging study.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
CT chest with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT chest without IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	☢☢☢
US chest	May Be Appropriate	O
MRI chest without and with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
MRI chest without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
FDG-PET/CT skull base to mid-thigh	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
Radiography rib views	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
Bone scan whole body	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT chest without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
WBC scan chest	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢

Panel Members

Justin T. Stowell, MD^a; Christopher M. Walker, MD^b; Jonathan H. Chung, MD^c; Tami J. Bang, MD^d; Brett W. Carter, MD^e; Jared D. Christensen, MD, MBA^f; Edwin F. Donnelly, MD, PhD^g; Tarek N. Hanna, MD^h; Stephen B. Hobbs, MDⁱ; Braeden D. Johnson, MD^j; Asha Kandathil, MD^k; Bruce M. Lo, MD, MBA, RDMS^l; Rachna Madan, MBBS^m; Sarah Majercik, MD, MBAⁿ; William H. Moore, MD^o; Jeffrey P. Kanne, MD^p.

Summary of Literature Review

Introduction/Background

Initial Imaging Definition

Initial imaging is defined as imaging at the beginning of the care episode for the medical condition defined by the variant. More than one procedure can be considered usually appropriate in the initial imaging evaluation when:

There are procedures that are equivalent alternatives (i.e., only one procedure will be ordered to provide the clinical information to effectively manage the patient’s care)

There are complementary procedures (i.e., more than one procedure is ordered as a set or simultaneously wherein each procedure provides unique clinical information to effectively manage the patient’s care).

Discussion of Procedures by Variant

Variant 1: Nontraumatic chest wall pain. No history of malignancy. Initial imaging.

Variant 1: Nontraumatic chest wall pain. No history of malignancy. Initial imaging.
A. Bone scan whole body

Variant 1: Nontraumatic chest wall pain. No history of malignancy. Initial imaging.
B. CT Chest

Variant 1: Nontraumatic chest wall pain. No history of malignancy. Initial imaging.
C. FDG-PET/CT Skull Base to Mid-Thigh

Variant 1: Nontraumatic chest wall pain. No history of malignancy. Initial imaging.
D. MRI Chest

Variant 1: Nontraumatic chest wall pain. No history of malignancy. Initial imaging.
E. Radiography Chest

Variant 1: Nontraumatic chest wall pain. No history of malignancy. Initial imaging.
F. Radiography Rib Views

Variant 1: Nontraumatic chest wall pain. No history of malignancy. Initial imaging.
G. US Chest

Variant 1: Nontraumatic chest wall pain. No history of malignancy. Initial imaging.
H. WBC Scan Chest

Variant 2: Nontraumatic chest wall pain. Known or suspected malignancy. Secondary evaluation after normal chest radiograph. Next imaging study.

Variant 2: Nontraumatic chest wall pain. Known or suspected malignancy. Secondary evaluation after normal chest radiograph. Next imaging study.
A. Bone Scan Whole Body

Variant 2: Nontraumatic chest wall pain. Known or suspected malignancy. Secondary evaluation after normal chest radiograph. Next imaging study.
B. CT Chest

Variant 2: Nontraumatic chest wall pain. Known or suspected malignancy. Secondary evaluation after normal chest radiograph. Next imaging study.
C. FDG-PET/CT Skull Base to Mid-Thigh

Variant 2: Nontraumatic chest wall pain. Known or suspected malignancy. Secondary evaluation after normal chest radiograph. Next imaging study.
D. MRI Chest

Variant 2: Nontraumatic chest wall pain. Known or suspected malignancy. Secondary evaluation after normal chest radiograph. Next imaging study.
E. Radiography Rib Views

Variant 2: Nontraumatic chest wall pain. Known or suspected malignancy. Secondary evaluation after normal chest radiograph. Next imaging study.
F. US Chest

Variant 2: Nontraumatic chest wall pain. Known or suspected malignancy. Secondary evaluation after normal chest radiograph. Next imaging study.
G. WBC Scan Chest

Variant 3: Nontraumatic chest wall pain. Suspected infectious or inflammatory condition. Secondary evaluation after normal chest radiograph. Next imaging study.

Variant 3: Nontraumatic chest wall pain. Suspected infectious or inflammatory condition. Secondary evaluation after normal chest radiograph. Next imaging study.
A. Bone Scan Whole Body

Variant 3: Nontraumatic chest wall pain. Suspected infectious or inflammatory condition. Secondary evaluation after normal chest radiograph. Next imaging study.
B. CT Chest

Variant 3: Nontraumatic chest wall pain. Suspected infectious or inflammatory condition. Secondary evaluation after normal chest radiograph. Next imaging study.
C. FDG-PET/CT Skull Base to Mid-Thigh

Variant 3: Nontraumatic chest wall pain. Suspected infectious or inflammatory condition. Secondary evaluation after normal chest radiograph. Next imaging study.
D. MRI Chest

Variant 3: Nontraumatic chest wall pain. Suspected infectious or inflammatory condition. Secondary evaluation after normal chest radiograph. Next imaging study.
E. Radiography Rib Views

Variant 3: Nontraumatic chest wall pain. Suspected infectious or inflammatory condition. Secondary evaluation after normal chest radiograph. Next imaging study.
F. US Chest

Variant 3: Nontraumatic chest wall pain. Suspected infectious or inflammatory condition. Secondary evaluation after normal chest radiograph. Next imaging study.
G. WBC Scan Chest

Variant 4: Nontraumatic chest wall pain. History of prior chest intervention. Secondary evaluation after normal chest radiograph. Next imaging study.

Variant 4: Nontraumatic chest wall pain. History of prior chest intervention. Secondary evaluation after normal chest radiograph. Next imaging study.
A. Bone Scan Whole Body

Variant 4: Nontraumatic chest wall pain. History of prior chest intervention. Secondary evaluation after normal chest radiograph. Next imaging study.
B. CT Chest

Variant 4: Nontraumatic chest wall pain. History of prior chest intervention. Secondary evaluation after normal chest radiograph. Next imaging study.
C. FDG-PET/CT Skull Base to Mid-Thigh

Variant 4: Nontraumatic chest wall pain. History of prior chest intervention. Secondary evaluation after normal chest radiograph. Next imaging study.
D. MRI Chest

Variant 4: Nontraumatic chest wall pain. History of prior chest intervention. Secondary evaluation after normal chest radiograph. Next imaging study.
E. Radiography Rib Views

Variant 4: Nontraumatic chest wall pain. History of prior chest intervention. Secondary evaluation after normal chest radiograph. Next imaging study.
F. US Chest

Variant 4: Nontraumatic chest wall pain. History of prior chest intervention. Secondary evaluation after normal chest radiograph. Next imaging study.
G. WBC Scan Chest

Summary of Highlights

Supporting Documents

The evidence table, literature search, and appendix for this topic are available at https://acsearch.acr.org/list. The appendix includes the strength of evidence assessment and the final rating round tabulations for each recommendation.

For additional information on the Appropriateness Criteria methodology and other supporting documents, please go to the ACR website at https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Clinical-Tools-and-Reference/Appropriateness-Criteria.

Appropriateness Category Names and Definitions

Appropriateness Category Name	Appropriateness Rating	Appropriateness Category Definition
Usually Appropriate	7, 8, or 9	The imaging procedure or treatment is indicated in the specified clinical scenarios at a favorable risk-benefit ratio for patients.
May Be Appropriate	4, 5, or 6	The imaging procedure or treatment may be indicated in the specified clinical scenarios as an alternative to imaging procedures or treatments with a more favorable risk-benefit ratio, or the risk-benefit ratio for patients is equivocal.
May Be Appropriate (Disagreement)	5	The individual ratings are too dispersed from the panel median. The different label provides transparency regarding the panel’s recommendation. “May be appropriate” is the rating category and a rating of 5 is assigned.
Usually Not Appropriate	1, 2, or 3	The imaging procedure or treatment is unlikely to be indicated in the specified clinical scenarios, or the risk-benefit ratio for patients is likely to be unfavorable.

Relative Radiation Level Information

Potential adverse health effects associated with radiation exposure are an important factor to consider when selecting the appropriate imaging procedure. Because there is a wide range of radiation exposures associated with different diagnostic procedures, a relative radiation level (RRL) indication has been included for each imaging examination. The RRLs are based on effective dose, which is a radiation dose quantity that is used to estimate population total radiation risk associated with an imaging procedure. Patients in the pediatric age group are at inherently higher risk from exposure, because of both organ sensitivity and longer life expectancy (relevant to the long latency that appears to accompany radiation exposure). For these reasons, the RRL dose estimate ranges for pediatric examinations are lower as compared with those specified for adults (see Table below). Additional information regarding radiation dose assessment for imaging examinations can be found in the ACR Appropriateness Criteria^® Radiation Dose Assessment Introduction document.

Relative Radiation Level Designations
Relative Radiation Level*	Adult Effective Dose Estimate Range	Pediatric Effective Dose Estimate Range
O	0 mSv	0 mSv
☢	<0.1 mSv	<0.03 mSv
☢☢	0.1-1 mSv	0.03-0.3 mSv
☢☢☢	1-10 mSv	0.3-3 mSv
☢☢☢☢	10-30 mSv	3-10 mSv
☢☢☢☢☢	30-100 mSv	10-30 mSv
*RRL assignments for some of the examinations cannot be made, because the actual patient doses in these procedures vary as a function of a number of factors (e.g., region of the body exposed to ionizing radiation, the imaging guidance that is used). The RRLs for these examinations are designated as “Varies.”

References

1.	Bosner S, Becker A, Hani MA, et al. Chest wall syndrome in primary care patients with chest pain: presentation, associated features and diagnosis. Fam Pract. 27(4):363-9, 2010 Aug.
2.	Buntinx F, Knockaert D, Bruyninckx R, et al. Chest pain in general practice or in the hospital emergency department: is it the same? Fam Pract 2001;18:586-9.
3.	Stochkendahl MJ, Christensen HW. Chest pain in focal musculoskeletal disorders. [Review] [77 refs]. Med Clin North Am. 94(2):259-73, 2010 Mar.
4.	Grani C, Senn O, Bischof M, et al. Diagnostic performance of reproducible chest wall tenderness to rule out acute coronary syndrome in acute chest pain: a prospective diagnostic study. BMJ Open. 5(1):e007442, 2015 Jan 28.
5.	Danve A.. Thoracic Manifestations of Ankylosing Spondylitis, Inflammatory Bowel Disease, and Relapsing Polychondritis. [Review]. Clin Chest Med. 40(3):599-608, 2019 Sep.
6.	Wendling D, Prati C, Demattei C, Loeuille D, Richette P, Dougados M. Anterior chest wall pain in recent inflammatory back pain suggestive of spondyloarthritis. data from the DESIR cohort. J Rheumatol. 40(7):1148-52, 2013 Jul.
7.	Schipper P, Tieu BH. Acute Chest Wall Infections: Surgical Site Infections, Necrotizing Soft Tissue Infections, and Sternoclavicular Joint Infection. [Review]. Thorac Surg Clin. 27(2):73-86, 2017 May.
8.	Papadopoulos N, Hacibaramoglu M, Kati C, Muller D, Floter J, Moritz A. Chronic poststernotomy pain after cardiac surgery: correlation of computed tomography findings on sternal healing with postoperative chest pain. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 61(3):202-8, 2013 Apr.
9.	Lee JW, Lee SW, Chang SH, Lee SM. Clinical role of bone scintigraphy in low-to-intermediate Framingham risk patients with atypical chest pain. Nucl Med Commun. 39(5):411-416, 2018 May.
10.	Henry TS, Donnelly EF, Boiselle PM, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Rib Fractures. J Am Coll Radiol 2019;16:S227-S34.
11.	Sano A, Tashiro K, Fukuda T. Cough-induced rib fractures. Asian Cardiovascular and Thoracic Annals. 23(8):958-60, 2015 Oct.Asian Cardiovasc Thorac Ann. 23(8):958-60, 2015 Oct.
12.	Bier G, Schabel C, Othman A, et al. Enhanced reading time efficiency by use of automatically unfolded CT rib reformations in acute trauma. European Journal of Radiology. 84(11):2173-80, 2015 Nov.Eur J Radiol. 84(11):2173-80, 2015 Nov.
13.	Ringl H, Lazar M, Topker M, et al. The ribs unfolded - a CT visualization algorithm for fast detection of rib fractures: effect on sensitivity and specificity in trauma patients. European Radiology. 25(7):1865-74, 2015 Jul.Eur Radiol. 25(7):1865-74, 2015 Jul.
14.	Giassi Kde S, Costa AN, Bachion GH, et al. Epipericardial fat necrosis: an underdiagnosed condition. Br J Radiol. 87(1038):20140118, 2014 Jun.
15.	Kienzl D, Prosch H, Topker M, Herold C. Imaging of non-cardiac, non-traumatic causes of acute chest pain. [Review]. Eur J Radiol. 81(12):3669-74, 2012 Dec.
16.	Ayloo A, Cvengros T, Marella S. Evaluation and treatment of musculoskeletal chest pain. [Review]. Prim Care. 40(4):863-87, viii, 2013 Dec.
17.	Zhang L, McMahon CJ, Shah S, Wu JS, Eisenberg RL, Kung JW. Clinical and Radiologic Predictive Factors of Rib Fractures in Outpatients With Chest Pain. [Review]. Current Problems in Diagnostic Radiology. 47(2):94-97, 2018 Mar - Apr.
18.	Newsom C, Jeanmonod R, Woolley W, et al. Prospective Validation and Refinement of a Decision Rule to Obtain Chest X-ray in Patients With Nontraumatic Chest Pain in the Emergency Department. Acad Emerg Med. 25(6):650-656, 2018 06.
19.	Mary Parks R, Jadoon M, Duffy J. Nontraumatic rupture of the costal margin: a single-center experience. Asian Cardiovasc Thorac Ann. 27(2):105-109, 2019 Feb.
20.	Park JB, Cho YS, Choi HJ. Diagnostic accuracy of the inverted grayscale rib series for detection of rib fracture in minor chest trauma. American Journal of Emergency Medicine. 33(4):548-52, 2015 Apr.
21.	Hoffstetter P, Dornia C, Wagner M, et al. Clinical significance of conventional rib series in patients with minor thoracic trauma. Rofo: Fortschritte auf dem Gebiete der Rontgenstrahlen und der Nuklearmedizin. 186(9):876-80, 2014 Sep.ROFO Fortschr Geb Rontgenstr Nuklearmed. 186(9):876-80, 2014 Sep.
22.	Lalande E, Guimont C, Emond M, et al. Feasibility of emergency department point-of-care ultrasound for rib fracture diagnosis in minor thoracic injury. CJEM, Can. j. emerg. med. care. 19(3):213-219, 2017 May.
23.	Lee WS, Kim YH, Chee HK, Lee SA. Ultrasonographic evaluation of costal cartilage fractures unnoticed by the conventional radiographic study and multidetector computed tomography. Eur. j. trauma emerg. surg.. 38(1):37-42, 2012 Feb.
24.	Rudas M, Orde S, Nalos M. Bedside lung ultrasound in the care of the critically ill. Crit Care Resusc. 19(4):327-336, 2017 Dec.
25.	Van Tassel D, McMahon LE, Riemann M, Wong K, Barnes CE. Dynamic ultrasound in the evaluation of patients with suspected slipping rib syndrome. Skeletal Radiol. 48(5):741-751, 2019 May.
26.	Krumme JW, Lauer MF, Stowell JT, Beteselassie NM, Kotwal SY. Bone Scintigraphy: A Review of Technical Aspects and Applications in Orthopedic Surgery. [Review]. Orthopedics. 42(1):e14-e24, 2019 Jan 01.
27.	Carter BW, Benveniste MF, Betancourt SL, et al. Imaging Evaluation of Malignant Chest Wall Neoplasms. [Review]. Radiographics. 36(5):1285-306, 2016 Sep-Oct.
28.	Dillman JR, Pernicano PG, McHugh JB, et al. Cross-sectional imaging of primary thoracic sarcomas with histopathologic correlation: a review for the radiologist. [Review] [42 refs]. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol. 39(1):17-29, 2010 Jan-Feb.
29.	Mullan CP, Madan R, Trotman-Dickenson B, Qian X, Jacobson FL, Hunsaker A. Radiology of chest wall masses. [Review]. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 197(3):W460-70, 2011 Sep.
30.	Nam SJ, Kim S, Lim BJ, et al. Imaging of primary chest wall tumors with radiologic-pathologic correlation. [Review]. Radiographics. 31(3):749-70, 2011 May-Jun.
31.	Al-Refaie RE, Amer S, Ismail MF, Al-Shabrawy M, Al-Gamal G, Mokbel E. Chondrosarcoma of the chest wall: single-center experience. Asian Cardiovasc Thorac Ann. 22(7):829-34, 2014 Sep.
32.	Kachroo P, Pak PS, Sandha HS, et al. Chest wall sarcomas are accurately diagnosed by image-guided core needle biopsy. J Thorac Oncol. 7(1):151-6, 2012 Jan.
33.	Nishiyama Y, Tateishi U, Kawai A, et al. Prediction of treatment outcomes in patients with chest wall sarcoma: evaluation with PET/CT. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 42(10):912-8, 2012 Oct.
34.	Metser U, Miller E, Lerman H, Even-Sapir E. Benign nonphysiologic lesions with increased 18F-FDG uptake on PET/CT: characterization and incidence. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007;189:1203-10.
35.	Choi HS, Yoo IeR, Park HL, Choi EK, Kim SH, Lee WH. Role of 18F-FDG PET/CT in differentiation of a benign lesion and metastasis on the ribs of cancer patients. Clin Imaging. 38(2):109-14, 2014 Mar-Apr.
36.	Al-Muqbel KM. Bone Marrow Metastasis Is an Early Stage of Bone Metastasis in Breast Cancer Detected Clinically by F18-FDG-PET/CT Imaging. Biomed Res Int. 2017:9852632, 2017.
37.	Qu X, Huang X, Yan W, Wu L, Dai K. A meta-analysis of 18FDG-PET-CT, 18FDG-PET, MRI and bone scintigraphy for diagnosis of bone metastases in patients with lung cancer. [Review]. Eur J Radiol. 81(5):1007-15, 2012 May.
38.	Bueno J, Lichtenberger JP 3rd, Rauch G, Carter BW. MR Imaging of Primary Chest Wall Neoplasms. [Review]. Top Magn Reson Imaging. 27(2):83-93, 2018 Apr.
39.	Souza FF, de Angelo M, O'Regan K, Jagannathan J, Krajewski K, Ramaiya N. Malignant primary chest wall neoplasms: a pictorial review of imaging findings. [Review]. Clin Imaging. 37(1):8-17, 2013 Jan-Feb.
40.	Bagheri R, Haghi SZ, Kalantari MR, et al. Primary malignant chest wall tumors: analysis of 40 patients. Journal Of Cardiothoracic Surgery. 9:106, 2014 Jun 19.J Cardiothorac Surg. 9:106, 2014 Jun 19.
41.	Akata S, Kajiwara N, Park J, et al. Evaluation of chest wall invasion by lung cancer using respiratory dynamic MRI. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 52(1):36-9, 2008 Feb.
42.	Shiotani S, Sugimura K, Sugihara M, et al. Diagnosis of chest wall invasion by lung cancer: useful criteria for exclusion of the possibility of chest wall invasion with MR imaging. Radiat Med. 18(5):283-90, 2000 Sep-Oct.
43.	Caroli G, Dell'Amore A, Cassanelli N, et al. Accuracy of transthoracic ultrasound for the prediction of chest wall infiltration by lung cancer and of lung infiltration by chest wall tumours. Heart Lung Circ. 24(10):1020-6, 2015 Oct.
44.	Tahiri M, Khereba M, Thiffault V, et al. Preoperative assessment of chest wall invasion in non-small cell lung cancer using surgeon-performed ultrasound. Ann Thorac Surg. 98(3):984-9, 2014 Sep.
45.	Bandi V, Lunn W, Ernst A, Eberhardt R, Hoffmann H, Herth FJ. Ultrasound vs. CT in detecting chest wall invasion by tumor: a prospective study. Chest 2008;133:881-6.
46.	Chira R, Chira A, Mircea PA. Intrathoracic tumors in contact with the chest wall--ultrasonographic and computed tomography comparative evaluation. Med. ultrasonography. 14(2):115-9, 2012 Jun.
47.	Koc ZP, Balci TA, Ozyurtkan MO. The role of the three phase bone scintigraphy in the management of the patients with costochondral pain. Mol Imaging Radionucl Ther 2013;22:90-3.
48.	Pattamapaspong N, Sivasomboon C, Settakorn J, Pruksakorn D, Muttarak M. Pitfalls in imaging of musculoskeletal infections. [Review]. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol. 18(1):86-100, 2014 Feb.
49.	Ramonda R, Lorenzin M, Lo Nigro A, et al. Anterior chest wall involvement in early stages of spondyloarthritis: advanced diagnostic tools. Journal of Rheumatology. 39(9):1844-9, 2012 Sep.
50.	Salles M, Olive A, Perez-Andres R, et al. The SAPHO syndrome: a clinical and imaging study. Clin Rheumatol. 30(2):245-9, 2011 Feb.
51.	Kaplan T, Gunal N, Gulbahar G, et al. Painful Chest Wall Swellings: Tietze Syndrome or Chest Wall Tumor?. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 64(3):239-44, 2016 Apr.
52.	Bergeron EJ, Meguid RA, Mitchell JD. Chronic Infections of the Chest Wall. [Review]. Thorac Surg Clin. 27(2):87-97, 2017 May.
53.	Elhai M, Paternotte S, Burki V, et al. Clinical characteristics of anterior chest wall pain in spondyloarthritis: an analysis of 275 patients. Joint Bone Spine. 79(5):476-81, 2012 Oct.
54.	Allen RK, Cramond T, Lennon D, Waterhouse M. A retrospective study of chest pain in benign asbestos pleural disease. PAIN MED. 12(9):1303-8, 2011 Sep.
55.	Jamar F, Buscombe J, Chiti A, et al. EANM/SNMMI guideline for 18F-FDG use in inflammation and infection. J Nucl Med 2013;54:647-58.
56.	Vaidyanathan S, Patel CN, Scarsbrook AF, Chowdhury FU. FDG PET/CT in infection and inflammation--current and emerging clinical applications. [Review]. Clin Radiol. 70(7):787-800, 2015 Jul.
57.	Kan Y, Wang W, Liu J, Yang J, Wang Z. Contribution of 18F-FDG PET/CT in a case-mix of fever of unknown origin and inflammation of unknown origin: a meta-analysis. Acta Radiologica. 60(6):716-725, 2019 Jun.
58.	Shimizu T, Tokuda Y. Necrotizing fasciitis. [Review]. Intern Med. 49(12):1051-7, 2010.
59.	Weber U, Lambert RG, Rufibach K, et al. Anterior chest wall inflammation by whole-body magnetic resonance imaging in patients with spondyloarthritis: lack of association between clinical and imaging findings in a cross-sectional study. Arthritis Res Ther. 14(1):R3, 2012 Jan 06.
60.	Palestro CJ.. Radionuclide imaging of osteomyelitis. [Review]. Semin Nucl Med. 45(1):32-46, 2015 Jan.
61.	Kouijzer IJE, Mulders-Manders CM, Bleeker-Rovers CP, Oyen WJG. Fever of Unknown Origin: the Value of FDG-PET/CT. [Review]. Semin Nucl Med. 48(2):100-107, 2018 03.
62.	Lloyd S, Decker RH, Evans SB. Bone scan findings of chest wall pain syndrome after stereotactic body radiation therapy: implications for the pathophysiology of the syndrome. J. thorac. dis.. 5(2):E41-4, 2013 Apr.
63.	Nicholls L, Gorayski P, Harvey J. Osteoradionecrosis of the Ribs following Breast Radiotherapy. Case rep., oncol.. 8(2):332-8, 2015 May-Aug.
64.	Hota P, Dass C, Erkmen C, Donuru A, Kumaran M. Poststernotomy Complications: A Multimodal Review of Normal and Abnormal Postoperative Imaging Findings. [Review]. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 211(6):1194-1205, 2018 12.
65.	Nambu A, Onishi H, Aoki S, et al. Rib fracture after stereotactic radiotherapy on follow-up thin-section computed tomography in 177 primary lung cancer patients. Radiat. oncol.. 6:137, 2011 Oct 13.
66.	Thibault I, Chiang A, Erler D, et al. Predictors of Chest Wall Toxicity after Lung Stereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 28(1):28-35, 2016 Jan.
67.	Gaudreau G, Costache V, Houde C, et al. Recurrent sternal infection following treatment with negative pressure wound therapy and titanium transverse plate fixation. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 37(4):888-92, 2010 Apr.
68.	Exarhos DN, Malagari K, Tsatalou EG, et al. Acute mediastinitis: spectrum of computed tomography findings. Eur Radiol 2005;15:1569-74.
69.	Sharif M, Wong CHM, Harky A. Sternal Wound Infections, Risk Factors and Management - How Far Are We? A Literature Review. [Review]. Heart Lung Circ. 28(6):835-843, 2019 Jun.
70.	Hautalahti J, Rinta-Kiikka I, Tarkka M, Laurikka J. Symptoms of Sternal Nonunion Late after Cardiac Surgery. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 65(4):325-331, 2017 Jun.
71.	Marasco SF, Davies AR, Cooper J, et al. Prospective randomized controlled trial of operative rib fixation in traumatic flail chest. J Am Coll Surg. 216(5):924-32, 2013 May.
72.	Bille A, Okiror L, Karenovics W, Routledge T. Experience with titanium devices for rib fixation and coverage of chest wall defects. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 15(4):588-95, 2012 Oct.
73.	Wang L, Huang L, Li X, et al. Three-Dimensional Printing PEEK Implant: A Novel Choice for the Reconstruction of Chest Wall Defect. Annals of Thoracic Surgery. 107(3):921-928, 2019 03.Ann Thorac Surg. 107(3):921-928, 2019 03.
74.	Mori T, Yamada T, Ohba Y, et al. A case of desmoid-type fibromatosis arising after thoracotomy for lung cancer with a review of the english and Japanese literature. [Review]. Ann Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 20 Suppl:465-9, 2014.
75.	Algan O, Confer M, Algan S, et al. Quantitative evaluation of correlation of dose and FDG-PET uptake value with clinical chest wall complications in patients with lung cancer treated with stereotactic body radiation therapy. JOURNAL OF X-RAY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY. 23(6):727-36, 2015.
76.	Tomita H, Kita T, Hayashi K, Kosuda S. Radiation-induced myositis mimicking chest wall tumor invasion in two patients with lung cancer: a PET/CT study. Clin Nucl Med. 37(2):168-9, 2012 Feb.
77.	Zhang R, Feng Z, Zhang Y, Tan H, Wang J, Qi F. Diagnostic value of fluorine-18 deoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography in deep sternal wound infection. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 71(12):1768-1776, 2018 Dec.
78.	Hariri H, Tan S, Martineau P, et al. Utility of FDG-PET/CT for the Detection and Characterization of Sternal Wound Infection Following Sternotomy. Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2019;53:253-62.
79.	Grubstein A, Rapson Y, Zer A, et al. MRI diagnosis and follow-up of chest wall and breast desmoid tumours in patients with a history of oncologic breast surgery and silicone implants: A pictorial report. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 63(1):47-53, 2019 Feb.
80.	Quirce R, Carril JM, Gutierrez-Mendiguchia C, Serrano J, Rabasa JM, Bernal JM. Assessment of the diagnostic capacity of planar scintigraphy and SPECT with 99mTc-HMPAO-labelled leukocytes in superficial and deep sternal infections after median sternotomy. Nucl Med Commun 2002;23:453-9.
81.	Bessette PR, Hanson MJ, Czarnecki DJ, Yuille DL, Rankin JJ. Evaluation of postoperative osteomyelitis of the sternum comparing CT and dual Tc-99m MDP bone and In-111 WBC SPECT. Clin Nucl Med 1993;18:197-202.
82.	American College of Radiology. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Radiation Dose Assessment Introduction. Available at: https://edge.sitecorecloud.io/americancoldf5f-acrorgf92a-productioncb02-3650/media/ACR/Files/Clinical/Appropriateness-Criteria/ACR-Appropriateness-Criteria-Radiation-Dose-Assessment-Introduction.pdf.

Disclaimer

The ACR Committee on Appropriateness Criteria and its expert panels have developed criteria for determining appropriate imaging examinations for diagnosis and treatment of specified medical condition(s). These criteria are intended to guide radiologists, radiation oncologists and referring physicians in making decisions regarding radiologic imaging and treatment. Generally, the complexity and severity of a patient’s clinical condition should dictate the selection of appropriate imaging procedures or treatments. Only those examinations generally used for evaluation of the patient’s condition are ranked. Other imaging studies necessary to evaluate other co-existent diseases or other medical consequences of this condition are not considered in this document. The availability of equipment or personnel may influence the selection of appropriate imaging procedures or treatments. Imaging techniques classified as investigational by the FDA have not been considered in developing these criteria; however, study of new equipment and applications should be encouraged. The ultimate decision regarding the appropriateness of any specific radiologic examination or treatment must be made by the referring physician and radiologist in light of all the circumstances presented in an individual examination.