UNLABELLED: Standard application of CT intravenous contrast agents in combined PET/CT may lead to high-density artifacts on CT and attenuation-corrected PET. To avoid associated diagnostic pitfalls, we designed and compared different intravenous contrast injection protocols for routine whole-body PET/CT. METHODS: Whole-body PET/CT included a topogram and a single spiral CT scan (2-row) with or without intravenous contrast, followed by an emission scan. The CT scan was used for attenuation correction of the emission data. Four groups of 10 whole-body PET/CT referrals each were investigated: (A) no intravenous contrast agent, (B) biphasic injection (90 and 50 mL at 3 and 1.5 mL/s, respectively) of intravenous contrast (300 mg/mL iodine) and CT in the craniocaudal direction with a 30-s delay, (C) triple-phase injection (90, 40, and 40 mL at 3, 2, and 1.5 mL/s, respectively) in the craniocaudal direction with a 50-s delay, and (D) dual-phase injection (80 and 60 mL at 3 and 1.5 mL/s, respectively) in the caudocranial direction with a 50-s delay. CT image quality was assessed on a scale from 1 to 3, and CT and attenuation-corrected PET images were reviewed separately for contrast-induced artifacts. RESULTS: Average CT image quality was poorest for protocol A (1.0) but improved to 2.8 when using intravenous contrast agents (protocols B-D). Only protocols B and C resulted in contrast-induced image artifacts that were limited to the thorax. The most homogeneous intravenous contrast enhancement without high-density image artifacts on either CT or PET after CT-based attenuation correction was achieved with protocol D. CONCLUSION: Dual-phase intravenous contrast injection and CT in the caudocranial direction with a 50-s delay yields reproducible high image quality and is now used routinely for combined diagnostic PET/CT at our hospital.
UNLABELLED: Standard application of CT intravenous contrast agents in combined PET/CT may lead to high-density artifacts on CT and attenuation-corrected PET. To avoid associated diagnostic pitfalls, we designed and compared different intravenous contrast injection protocols for routine whole-body PET/CT. METHODS: Whole-body PET/CT included a topogram and a single spiral CT scan (2-row) with or without intravenous contrast, followed by an emission scan. The CT scan was used for attenuation correction of the emission data. Four groups of 10 whole-body PET/CT referrals each were investigated: (A) no intravenous contrast agent, (B) biphasic injection (90 and 50 mL at 3 and 1.5 mL/s, respectively) of intravenous contrast (300 mg/mL iodine) and CT in the craniocaudal direction with a 30-s delay, (C) triple-phase injection (90, 40, and 40 mL at 3, 2, and 1.5 mL/s, respectively) in the craniocaudal direction with a 50-s delay, and (D) dual-phase injection (80 and 60 mL at 3 and 1.5 mL/s, respectively) in the caudocranial direction with a 50-s delay. CT image quality was assessed on a scale from 1 to 3, and CT and attenuation-corrected PET images were reviewed separately for contrast-induced artifacts. RESULTS: Average CT image quality was poorest for protocol A (1.0) but improved to 2.8 when using intravenous contrast agents (protocols B-D). Only protocols B and C resulted in contrast-induced image artifacts that were limited to the thorax. The most homogeneous intravenous contrast enhancement without high-density image artifacts on either CT or PET after CT-based attenuation correction was achieved with protocol D. CONCLUSION: Dual-phase intravenous contrast injection and CT in the caudocranial direction with a 50-s delay yields reproducible high image quality and is now used routinely for combined diagnostic PET/CT at our hospital.
Authors: Philip Aschoff; Christian Plathow; Thomas Beyer; Matthias P Lichy; Gunter Erb; Mehmet Ö Öksüz; Claus D Claussen; Christina Pfannenberg Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2011-11-29 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Suzanne L Aquino; Landon B Kuester; Victorine V Muse; Elkan F Halpern; Alan J Fischman Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2006-03-03 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Ronald Boellaard; Wim J G Oyen; Corneline J Hoekstra; Otto S Hoekstra; Eric P Visser; Antoon T Willemsen; Bertjan Arends; Fred J Verzijlbergen; Josee Zijlstra; Anne M Paans; Emile F I Comans; Jan Pruim Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2008-08-15 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Anna C Pfannenberg; Philip Aschoff; Klaus Brechtel; Mark Müller; Roland Bares; Frank Paulsen; Jutta Scheiderbauer; Godehard Friedel; Claus D Claussen; Susanne M Eschmann Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2006-08-01 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Todd M Blodgett; Ajeet S Mehta; Amar S Mehta; Charles M Laymon; Jonathan Carney; David W Townsend Journal: Clin Imaging Date: 2011 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 1.605
Authors: M Bellomi; S Rizzo; L L Travaini; L Bazzi; G Trifirò; M G Zampino; D Radice; G Paganelli Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2007-07-26 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Pierre Vera; Matthieu John Ouvrier; Sébastien Hapdey; Marc Thillays; Anne Sophie Pesquet; Brigitte Diologent; Françoise Callonec; Anne Hitzel; Agathe Edet-Sanson; Jean François Ménard; Fabrice Jardin; Hervé Tilly Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2007-08-11 Impact factor: 9.236