Literature DB >> 25973341

Comparison of FDG-PET/CT images between chronic renal failure patients on hemodialysis and controls.

Akira Toriihara1, Yoshio Kitazume1, Hidenori Nishida2, Kazunori Kubota1, Masashi Nakadate1, Ukihide Tateishi1.   

Abstract

The whole-body 2-deoxy-2-[(18)F]fluoro-D-glucose (FDG) distribution in chronic renal failure (CRF) patients on hemodialysis would be different from that in subjects with normal renal function, because they lack urinary FDG excretion and remain in a constant volume overload. We evaluated the difference in the physiological uptake pattern of FDG between chronic renal failure patients on hemodialysis and control subjects. The subjects for this retrospective study consisted of 24 chronic renal failure patients on hemodialysis (HD group) and 24 age- and sex-matched control subjects (NC group). Standardized uptake values normalized by the body weight (SUVbw), ideal body weight (SUVibw), lean body mass (SUVlbm), and body surface area (SUVbsa) in the cerebellum, lungs, liver, gluteal muscles and subcutaneous fat, spleen, thoracolumbar spine, thoracic and abdominal aorta, and right atrium were calculated in positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) images. SUVbw in the gluteal muscles, subcutaneous fat, spleen and right atrium was significantly higher in the HD group as compared to that in the NC group (p < 0.05; unpaired t test). In addition, SUVibm, SUVlbm, as well as SUVbsa in the abdominal aorta were significantly higher in the HD group as compared to those in the NC group (p < 0.05; unpaired t test). In conclusion, as compared to normal subjects, chronic renal failure patients on hemodialysis show significantly higher physiological FDG uptake in the soft tissues, spleen and blood pool.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Chronic renal failure; FDG-PET/CT; hemodialysis; physiological uptake

Year:  2015        PMID: 25973341      PMCID: PMC4396005     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging


  15 in total

1.  Standardized uptake value in pediatric patients: an investigation to determine the optimum measurement parameter.

Authors:  H W Yeung; A Sanches; O D Squire; H A Macapinlac; S M Larson; Y E Erdi
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2001-11-22       Impact factor: 9.236

2.  Quantification of [18F]-FDG uptake in atherosclerotic plaque: impact of renal function.

Authors:  Thorsten Derlin; Christian R Habermann; Jasmin D Hahne; Ivayla Apostolova; Susanne Klutmann; Janos Mester; Ralph Buchert
Journal:  Ann Nucl Med       Date:  2011-06-08       Impact factor: 2.668

3.  Cancer in patients on dialysis for end-stage renal disease: an international collaborative study.

Authors:  P Maisonneuve; L Agodoa; R Gellert; J H Stewart; G Buccianti; A B Lowenfels; R A Wolfe; E Jones; A P Disney; D Briggs; M McCredie; P Boyle
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1999-07-10       Impact factor: 79.321

4.  Pre-clinical myocardial metabolic alterations in chronic kidney disease.

Authors:  Jeffrey C Fink; Martin A Lodge; Mark F Smith; Anish Hinduja; Jeanine Brown; Mara Y Dinits-Pensy; Vasken Dilsizian
Journal:  Cardiology       Date:  2010-07-07       Impact factor: 1.869

5.  Mortality caused by sepsis in patients with end-stage renal disease compared with the general population.

Authors:  M J Sarnak; B L Jaber
Journal:  Kidney Int       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 10.612

6.  Relationship between nutritional status and the glomerular filtration rate: results from the MDRD study.

Authors:  J D Kopple; T Greene; W C Chumlea; D Hollinger; B J Maroni; D Merrill; L K Scherch; G Schulman; S R Wang; G S Zimmer
Journal:  Kidney Int       Date:  2000-04       Impact factor: 10.612

7.  Renal insulin resistance syndrome, adiponectin and cardiovascular events in patients with kidney disease: the mild and moderate kidney disease study.

Authors:  Bjoern Becker; Florian Kronenberg; Jan T Kielstein; Hermann Haller; Christian Morath; Eberhard Ritz; Danilo Fliser
Journal:  J Am Soc Nephrol       Date:  2005-03-02       Impact factor: 10.121

8.  Standardized uptake values of FDG: body surface area correction is preferable to body weight correction.

Authors:  C K Kim; N C Gupta; B Chandramouli; A Alavi
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  1994-01       Impact factor: 10.057

Review 9.  From RECIST to PERCIST: Evolving Considerations for PET response criteria in solid tumors.

Authors:  Richard L Wahl; Heather Jacene; Yvette Kasamon; Martin A Lodge
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2009-05       Impact factor: 10.057

10.  Variation in urinary excretion of FDG, yet another uncertainty in quantitative PET.

Authors:  Tore Bach-Gansmo; Ja Dybvik; Tc Adamsen; A Naum
Journal:  Acta Radiol Short Rep       Date:  2012-09-23
View more
  5 in total

Review 1.  Influences on PET Quantification and Interpretation.

Authors:  Julian M M Rogasch; Frank Hofheinz; Lutz van Heek; Conrad-Amadeus Voltin; Ronald Boellaard; Carsten Kobe
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2022-02-10

2.  Tumor heterogeneity on (18)F-FDG-PET/CT for response monitoring in non-small cell lung cancer treated with erlotinib.

Authors:  Matthijs H van Gool; Tjeerd S Aukema; Michiel Sinaasappel; Renato A Valdés Olmos; Houke M Klomp
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2016-03       Impact factor: 2.895

3.  Clinically determined type of 18F-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose uptake as an alternative prognostic marker in resectable pancreatic cancer.

Authors:  Jae Uk Chong; Ho Kyoung Hwang; Jin Ho Lee; Mijin Yun; Chang Moo Kang; Woo Jung Lee
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-02-24       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Investigation of Association Between Borderline Pancreatic Head Cancer and Glucose Uptake by Using Positron-Emission Tomographic Studies.

Authors:  Ying Zhang; Lei Qin; Changming Zhang
Journal:  Med Sci Monit       Date:  2017-10-16

5.  FDG-PET/CT in intensive care patients with bloodstream infection.

Authors:  Jordy P Pijl; Mark Londema; Thomas C Kwee; Maarten W N Nijsten; Riemer H J A Slart; Rudi A J O Dierckx; Peter H J van der Voort; Andor W J M Glaudemans; Janesh Pillay
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2021-04-07       Impact factor: 9.097

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.