PURPOSE: To describe a split-dose technique for fluorine 18 fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT)-guided ablation that permits both target localization and evaluation of treatment effectiveness. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional review board approved the study with a waiver of consent. From July to December 2011, 23 patients (13 women, 10 men; mean age, 59 years; range, 35-87 years) with 29 FDG-avid tumors (median size, 1.4 cm; range, 0.6-4.4 cm) were targeted for ablation. The location of the lesion was the liver (n = 23), lung (n = 4), adrenal gland (n = 1), and thigh (n = 1). Radiofrequency ablation was performed in 17 lesions; microwave ablation, in six; irreversible electroporation, in five; and cryoablation, in one. The pathologic condition of the tumor was metastatic colorectal adenocarcinoma in 18 lesions, primary hepatocellular carcinoma in one lesion, and a variety of metastatic tumors in the remaining 10 lesions. A total of 4 mCi (148 MBq) of FDG was administered before the procedure for localization and imaging guidance. At completion of the ablation, an additional 8 mCi (296 MBq) of FDG was administered to assess ablation adequacy. Results of subsequent imaging follow-up were used to determine if postablation imaging after the second dose of FDG reliably helped predict complete tumor ablation. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the results. RESULTS: Twenty-eight of 29 (97%) ablated lesions showed no residual FDG activity after the second intraprocedural FDG dose. One patient with residual activity underwent immediate biopsy that revealed residual viable tumor and was immediately re-treated. Follow-up imaging at a median of 155 days (range, 92-257 days) after ablation showed local recurrences in two (7%) lesions that were originally negative at postablation PET. CONCLUSION: Split-dose FDG PET/CT may be a useful tool to provide both guidance and endpoint evaluation, allowing an opportunity for repeat intervention if necessary. Further work is necessary to validate these concepts.
PURPOSE: To describe a split-dose technique for fluorine 18 fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT)-guided ablation that permits both target localization and evaluation of treatment effectiveness. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional review board approved the study with a waiver of consent. From July to December 2011, 23 patients (13 women, 10 men; mean age, 59 years; range, 35-87 years) with 29 FDG-avid tumors (median size, 1.4 cm; range, 0.6-4.4 cm) were targeted for ablation. The location of the lesion was the liver (n = 23), lung (n = 4), adrenal gland (n = 1), and thigh (n = 1). Radiofrequency ablation was performed in 17 lesions; microwave ablation, in six; irreversible electroporation, in five; and cryoablation, in one. The pathologic condition of the tumor was metastatic colorectal adenocarcinoma in 18 lesions, primary hepatocellular carcinoma in one lesion, and a variety of metastatic tumors in the remaining 10 lesions. A total of 4 mCi (148 MBq) of FDG was administered before the procedure for localization and imaging guidance. At completion of the ablation, an additional 8 mCi (296 MBq) of FDG was administered to assess ablation adequacy. Results of subsequent imaging follow-up were used to determine if postablation imaging after the second dose of FDG reliably helped predict complete tumor ablation. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the results. RESULTS: Twenty-eight of 29 (97%) ablated lesions showed no residual FDG activity after the second intraprocedural FDG dose. One patient with residual activity underwent immediate biopsy that revealed residual viable tumor and was immediately re-treated. Follow-up imaging at a median of 155 days (range, 92-257 days) after ablation showed local recurrences in two (7%) lesions that were originally negative at postablation PET. CONCLUSION: Split-dose FDG PET/CT may be a useful tool to provide both guidance and endpoint evaluation, allowing an opportunity for repeat intervention if necessary. Further work is necessary to validate these concepts.
Authors: R Peter Lokken; Debra A Gervais; Ronald S Arellano; Kemal Tuncali; Paul R Morrison; Servet Tatli; Peter R Mueller; Stuart G Silverman Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Christopher J Weight; Jihad H Kaouk; Nicholas J Hegarty; Erick M Remer; Charles M O'Malley; Brian R Lane; Inderbir S Gill; Andrew C Novick Journal: J Urol Date: 2008-02-20 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Louise M Fanchon; Snjezana Dogan; Andre L Moreira; Sean A Carlin; C Ross Schmidtlein; Ellen Yorke; Aditya P Apte; Irene A Burger; Jeremy C Durack; Joseph P Erinjeri; Majid Maybody; Heiko Schöder; Robert H Siegelbaum; Constantinos T Sofocleous; Joseph O Deasy; Stephen B Solomon; John L Humm; Assen S Kirov Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2015-02-26 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Francois Cornelis; Vlasios Sotirchos; Elena Violari; Constantinos T Sofocleous; Heiko Schoder; Jeremy C Durack; Robert H Siegelbaum; Majid Maybody; John Humm; Stephen B Solomon Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2016-02-23 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Rui Li; Sheng Xu; William F Pritchard; John W Karanian; Venkatesh P Krishnasamy; Bradford J Wood; Zion Tsz Ho Tse Journal: Ann Biomed Eng Date: 2018-01-05 Impact factor: 3.934
Authors: Vlasios S Sotirchos; Sho Fujisawa; Efsevia Vakiani; Stephen B Solomon; Katia O Manova-Todorova; Constantinos T Sofocleous Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2019-03-04 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Francois H Cornelis; Elena N Petre; Efsevia Vakiani; David Klimstra; Jeremy C Durack; Mithat Gonen; Joseph Osborne; Stephen B Solomon; Constantinos T Sofocleous Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2018-02-09 Impact factor: 10.057