PURPOSE: At (18)F-2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) examinations a high tracer uptake of the skeletal muscles is sometimes encountered which can lead to reduced uptake in pathological lesions. This was evaluated in retrospect in patients being recalled for a repeat examination after reducing the muscular uptake. METHODS: Ten patients with increased muscular tracer uptake were examined with FDG PET/CT on two occasions with a mean of 6 days. All patients showed at least one pathological lesion with increased tracer uptake. The muscular uptake was reduced at the second examination by informing the patient to refrain from physical activity together with pretreatment with diazepam. The maximum standardized uptake value (SUV(max)) of the pathological lesion and SUV(mean) of certain skeletal muscles, liver, spleen, lungs, blood and certain bone marrow portions were calculated. RESULTS: In all patients, the muscular uptake was reduced to a normal level at visual evaluation as well as at comparison of SUVs with 25 consecutive clinical patients exhibiting a normal FDG distribution (p < 0.001). The mean lesion SUV(max) increased from 2.4 to 3.7 (54 %) between the examinations (p < 0.05). All reference tissues/organs showed a significant increase of SUV at the second examination. Relating lesion SUV(max) to the activity of any of the reference tissues/organs there was no significant difference between the studies. CONCLUSION: The distribution of FDG constitutes a relative mechanism. This must be especially considered at longitudinal examinations in the same patient at therapy evaluations. In examinations with a somehow distorted general distribution of the activity, it may be more relevant to relate the lesion activity to a reference tissue/organ than relying on SUV assessments.
PURPOSE: At (18)F-2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) examinations a high tracer uptake of the skeletal muscles is sometimes encountered which can lead to reduced uptake in pathological lesions. This was evaluated in retrospect in patients being recalled for a repeat examination after reducing the muscular uptake. METHODS: Ten patients with increased muscular tracer uptake were examined with FDG PET/CT on two occasions with a mean of 6 days. All patients showed at least one pathological lesion with increased tracer uptake. The muscular uptake was reduced at the second examination by informing the patient to refrain from physical activity together with pretreatment with diazepam. The maximum standardized uptake value (SUV(max)) of the pathological lesion and SUV(mean) of certain skeletal muscles, liver, spleen, lungs, blood and certain bone marrow portions were calculated. RESULTS: In all patients, the muscular uptake was reduced to a normal level at visual evaluation as well as at comparison of SUVs with 25 consecutive clinical patients exhibiting a normal FDG distribution (p < 0.001). The mean lesion SUV(max) increased from 2.4 to 3.7 (54 %) between the examinations (p < 0.05). All reference tissues/organs showed a significant increase of SUV at the second examination. Relating lesion SUV(max) to the activity of any of the reference tissues/organs there was no significant difference between the studies. CONCLUSION: The distribution of FDG constitutes a relative mechanism. This must be especially considered at longitudinal examinations in the same patient at therapy evaluations. In examinations with a somehow distorted general distribution of the activity, it may be more relevant to relate the lesion activity to a reference tissue/organ than relying on SUV assessments.
Authors: Subhash Chander; Eser Lay Ergun; Imad T Zak; Alkis P Zingas; David A Bloom; Richard N Joyrich; Todd M Getzen; Mark Shaman Journal: Clin Nucl Med Date: 2004-05 Impact factor: 7.794
Authors: Virginie Frings; Adrianus J de Langen; Egbert F Smit; Floris H P van Velden; Otto S Hoekstra; Harm van Tinteren; Ronald Boellaard Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2010-11-15 Impact factor: 10.057
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: Linda M Velasquez; Ronald Boellaard; Georgia Kollia; Wendy Hayes; Otto S Hoekstra; Adriaan A Lammertsma; Susan M Galbraith Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2009-09-16 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Boon-Keng Teo; Shiva Badiee; Mohiuddin Hadi; Tuwin Lam; Lauran Johnson; Youngho Seo; Stephen L Bacharach; Bruce H Hasegawa; Benjamin L Franc Journal: Nucl Med Commun Date: 2008-04 Impact factor: 1.690
Authors: Robert K Doot; Lisa K Dunnwald; Erin K Schubert; Mark Muzi; Lanell M Peterson; Paul E Kinahan; Brenda F Kurland; David A Mankoff Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2007-05-15 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Charlotte S Schouten; Otto S Hoekstra; C René Leemans; Jonas A Castelijns; Remco de Bree Journal: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2014-11-06 Impact factor: 2.503
Authors: Afnan A Malaih; Joel T Dunn; Lotte Nygård; David G Kovacs; Flemming L Andersen; Sally F Barrington; Barbara M Fischer Journal: Nucl Med Commun Date: 2022-05-01 Impact factor: 1.698