Jeffrey D Steinberg1, Wouter Vogel2, Erik Vegt2. 1. 1 Mouse Clinic for Cancer and Aging (MCCA) Imaging Unit, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands. 2. 2 Department of Nuclear Medicine, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Brown fat can exhibit high uptake of fluorine-18 fludeoxyglucose (18F-FDG) on positron emission tomography (PET) and interferes with interpretation of the scan. The goal of this study was to identify factors that may influence brown adipose tissue (BAT) activation. METHODS: A retrospective study of 18F-FDG PET scans was performed using a database of 15,109 PET/CT reports. BAT activation reported by nuclear medicine physicians and factors influencing BAT activation were gathered. The data were analyzed using in-house software. RESULTS: The total reported BAT activation was 3.6%. BAT activation was reported significantly more often in patients who were female (p < 0.0001), younger (p < 0.0001), with lower body mass index (p < 0.0001), with lower blood glucose levels (p = 0.01), indicated for breast cancer (p = 0.004), not administered chemotherapy recently before the scan (p < 0.0001) and shown to have BAT activation in a previous scan (p < 0.0001). BAT activation was also reported significantly more for lower outdoor temperatures (p < 0.0001) and for late morning scans than for afternoon (p = 0.005) and early morning (p = 0.001) scans. CONCLUSION: This retrospective study of 15,109 scans highlights multiple factors contributing to BAT activation on 18F-FDG PET. The identification of new factors influencing BAT and confirmation of previously identified factors with a larger data set can be used to more accurately identify patients at risk for BAT activation so that prevention strategies can be implemented. Advances in knowledge: This study presents new factors associated with higher incidence of BAT activation, such as time of day, previous BAT activation and breast cancer. Conversely, recent chemotherapy was associated with reduced incidence of BAT activation.
OBJECTIVE: Brown fat can exhibit high uptake of fluorine-18 fludeoxyglucose (18F-FDG) on positron emission tomography (PET) and interferes with interpretation of the scan. The goal of this study was to identify factors that may influence brown adipose tissue (BAT) activation. METHODS: A retrospective study of 18F-FDG PET scans was performed using a database of 15,109 PET/CT reports. BAT activation reported by nuclear medicine physicians and factors influencing BAT activation were gathered. The data were analyzed using in-house software. RESULTS: The total reported BAT activation was 3.6%. BAT activation was reported significantly more often in patients who were female (p < 0.0001), younger (p < 0.0001), with lower body mass index (p < 0.0001), with lower blood glucose levels (p = 0.01), indicated for breast cancer (p = 0.004), not administered chemotherapy recently before the scan (p < 0.0001) and shown to have BAT activation in a previous scan (p < 0.0001). BAT activation was also reported significantly more for lower outdoor temperatures (p < 0.0001) and for late morning scans than for afternoon (p = 0.005) and early morning (p = 0.001) scans. CONCLUSION: This retrospective study of 15,109 scans highlights multiple factors contributing to BAT activation on 18F-FDG PET. The identification of new factors influencing BAT and confirmation of previously identified factors with a larger data set can be used to more accurately identify patients at risk for BAT activation so that prevention strategies can be implemented. Advances in knowledge: This study presents new factors associated with higher incidence of BAT activation, such as time of day, previous BAT activation and breast cancer. Conversely, recent chemotherapy was associated with reduced incidence of BAT activation.
Authors: C Rousseau; E Bourbouloux; L Campion; N Fleury; B Bridji; J F Chatal; I Resche; M Campone Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2006-04-05 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: David A Mankoff; Janet F Eary; Jeanne M Link; Mark Muzi; Joseph G Rajendran; Alexander M Spence; Kenneth A Krohn Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2007-06-15 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Wouter D van Marken Lichtenbelt; Joost W Vanhommerig; Nanda M Smulders; Jamie M A F L Drossaerts; Gerrit J Kemerink; Nicole D Bouvy; Patrick Schrauwen; G J Jaap Teule Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-04-09 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Aaron M Cypess; Sanaz Lehman; Gethin Williams; Ilan Tal; Dean Rodman; Allison B Goldfine; Frank C Kuo; Edwin L Palmer; Yu-Hua Tseng; Alessandro Doria; Gerald M Kolodny; C Ronald Kahn Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-04-09 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Lynne E Ramage; Murat Akyol; Alison M Fletcher; John Forsythe; Mark Nixon; Roderick N Carter; Edwin J R van Beek; Nicholas M Morton; Brian R Walker; Roland H Stimson Journal: Cell Metab Date: 2016-07-12 Impact factor: 27.287
Authors: Tobias Becher; Srikanth Palanisamy; Daniel J Kramer; Mahmoud Eljalby; Sarah J Marx; Andreas G Wibmer; Scott D Butler; Caroline S Jiang; Roger Vaughan; Heiko Schöder; Allyn Mark; Paul Cohen Journal: Nat Med Date: 2021-01-04 Impact factor: 53.440
Authors: André C Carpentier; Denis P Blondin; Kirsi A Virtanen; Denis Richard; François Haman; Éric E Turcotte Journal: Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) Date: 2018-08-07 Impact factor: 5.555
Authors: Cornelia Brendle; Norbert Stefan; Eva Grams; Martin Soekler; Christian la Fougère; Christina Pfannenberg Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-12-11 Impact factor: 4.379