Literature DB >> 19680659

Evaluation of the effects of oral water and low-density barium sulphate suspension on bowel appearance on FDG-PET/CT.

Michael A Blake1, Bindu N Setty, Carmel G Cronin, Mannudeep Kalra, Nagaraj Setty Holalkere, Alan J Fischman, Peter R Mueller, Dushyant V Sahani.   

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to assess which of five bowel preparation regimes offers superior bowel distension and to assess if these regimes adversely affect FDG activity on PET/CT imaging. The study conformed to HIPAA regulations. Ninety patients were divided into five groups of 18 who received no oral contrast agent (group A); 900 ml of water orally (group B); or 900, 1,350, or 1,800 ml of LDB (groups C, D, E, respectively). PET/CT examinations were assessed quantitatively (bowel diameter, SUV) and qualitatively (visual assessment grading scale) for bowel distension and FDG activity by two blinded readers. ANOVA was utilized to determine if a statistically significant difference (SSD) existed between the groups in terms of distension and FDG uptake. Qualitatively superior bowel distension was observed in group C (LDB) compared to B (water) and greater distension was noted with increased volumes of LDB in C, D, and E. Quantitatively there was an SSD in mean distension between groups C and B (P < 0.001 except duodenum). Qualitatively and quantitatively there was no significant difference in bowel FDG uptake among the groups (P > 0.05). LDB as an oral contrast agent provides superior bowel distension over water and does not induce increased FDG bowel activity.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19680659     DOI: 10.1007/s00330-009-1527-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Radiol        ISSN: 0938-7994            Impact factor:   5.315


  19 in total

1.  24. The Fusion of Anatomic and Physiologic Tomographic Images to Enhance Accurate Interpretation.

Authors: 
Journal:  Clin Positron Imaging       Date:  2000-07

2.  Abdominal helical CT: milk as a low-attenuation oral contrast agent.

Authors:  S E Thompson; V Raptopoulos; R L Sheiman; M M McNicholas; P Prassopoulos
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1999-06       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  Initial experience with oral contrast in PET/CT: phantom and clinical studies.

Authors:  Christian Cohade; Medhat Osman; Yuji Nakamoto; Laura T Marshall; Jonathan M Links; Elliot K Fishman; Richard L Wahl
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2003-03       Impact factor: 10.057

4.  Oral contrast medium in PET/CT: should you or shouldn't you?

Authors:  Ashley M Groves; Irfan Kayani; John C Dickson; Caroline Townsend; Ian Croasdale; Rizwan Syed; Nagesh Nagabushan; Sharon F Hain; Peter J Ell; Jamshed B Bomanji
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2005-06-04       Impact factor: 9.236

5.  Evaluation of bowel distention and bowel wall appearance by using neutral oral contrast agent for multi-detector row CT.

Authors:  Alec J Megibow; James S Babb; Elizabeth M Hecht; Jennie J Cho; Carmela Houston; Michael M Boruch; Archie B Williams
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2005-11-17       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 6.  Contrast materials for cross-sectional imaging of the abdomen.

Authors:  B Hamm
Journal:  Curr Opin Radiol       Date:  1992-06

7.  Combined PET/CT Imaging in Oncology. Impact on Patient Management.

Authors:  P G. Kluetz; C C. Meltzer; V L. Villemagne; P E. Kinahan; S Chander; M A. Martinelli; D W. Townsend
Journal:  Clin Positron Imaging       Date:  2000-11

8.  Incidental colonic focal lesions detected by FDG PET/CT.

Authors:  Fabrice Gutman; Jean-Louis Alberini; Myriam Wartski; Didier Vilain; Elise Le Stanc; Farid Sarandi; Carine Corone; Catherine Tainturier; Alain Paul Pecking
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 3.959

9.  Evaluation of simethicone-coated cellulose as a negative oral contrast agent for abdominal CT.

Authors:  Dushyant V Sahani; Kartik S Jhaveri; Roy V D'souza; Jose C Varghese; Elkan Halpern; Mukesh G Harisinghani; Peter F Hahn; Sanjay Saini
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 3.173

10.  Detection of clinically unexpected malignant and premalignant tumors with whole-body FDG PET: histopathologic comparison.

Authors:  Harry Agress; Benjamin Z Cooper
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2003-12-29       Impact factor: 11.105

View more
  4 in total

1.  MDCT appearance of the appendix: how does the low-density barium sulfate oral contrast agent affect it?

Authors:  Vahid Yaghmai; Anahita Aghaei-Lasboo; Warren M Brandwein; Sandra Tochetto; John N Mafi; Frank H Miller; Paul Nikolaidis
Journal:  Emerg Radiol       Date:  2010-08-04

Review 2.  Utility of positron emission tomography/CT in the evaluation of small bowel pathology.

Authors:  C G Cronin; J Scott; A Kambadakone; O A Catalano; D Sahani; M A Blake; S McDermott
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2012-09       Impact factor: 3.039

3.  Molecular imaging in oncology: the acceptance of PET/CT and the emergence of MR/PET imaging.

Authors:  Christiaan Schiepers; Magnus Dahlbom
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2010-12-21       Impact factor: 5.315

4.  Utility of negative oral contrast (milk with 4% fat) in PET-CT studies.

Authors:  Samuel Aban Meyer; Sachin Gawde
Journal:  Indian J Nucl Med       Date:  2012-07
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.