Jong-Ryool Oh1, Ji-Hyoung Seo2, Woo-Jin Chang3, Seung-Il Bae3, In-Wook Song3, Jin-Gu Bong4, Hye-Yeon Jeong4, So-Young Park5, Jeongyup Bae6, Hyundae Yoon3. 1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Raphael Hospital, Daegu, Republic of Korea. 2. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Fatima Hospital, Daegu, Republic of Korea. 3. Department of Internal Medicine, Raphael Hospital, 303, Jungang-daero, Jung-gu, 41968 Daegu, Republic of Korea. 4. Department of Surgery, Raphael Hospital, Daegu, Republic of Korea. 5. Department of Anesthesiology, Raphael Hospital, Daegu, Republic of Korea. 6. Department of Pathology, Raphael Hospital, Daegu, Republic of Korea.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We aimed to evaluate the difference in fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) uptake in sedated healthy subjects after they underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and colonoscopy procedures. METHODS: The endoscopy group (n = 29) included healthy subjects who underwent screening via F-18 FDG positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) after an EGD and/or colonoscopy under sedation on the same day. The control group (n = 35) included healthy subjects who underwent screening via PET/CT only. FDG uptake in the tongue, uvula, epiglottis, vocal cords, esophagus, stomach, duodenum, liver, cecum, colon, anus, and muscle were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: Maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) in the tongue, pharynx, larynx, and esophagus did not significantly differ between the endoscopy and control groups. In contrast, mean SUVmax in the whole stomach was 18 % higher in the endoscopy group than in the control group (SUVmax: 2.96 vs. 2.51, P = 0.010). In the lower gastrointestinal track, SUVmax from the cecum to the rectum was not significantly different between the two groups, whereas SUVmax in the anus was 20 % higher in the endoscopy group than in the control group (SUVmax: 4.21 vs. 3.50, P = 0.002). SUVmax in the liver and muscle was not significantly different between the two groups. Mean volume of the stomach and mean cross section of the colon was significantly higher in the endoscopy group than in the control group (stomach: 313.28 cm3 vs. 209.93 cm3, P < 0.001, colon: 8.82 cm2 vs. 5.98 cm2, P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: EGD and colonoscopy under sedation does not lead to significant differences in SUVmax in most parts of the body. Only gastric FDG uptake in the EGD subjects and anal FDG uptake in the colonoscopy subjects was higher than uptake in those regions in the control subjects.
PURPOSE: We aimed to evaluate the difference in fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) uptake in sedated healthy subjects after they underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and colonoscopy procedures. METHODS: The endoscopy group (n = 29) included healthy subjects who underwent screening via F-18 FDG positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) after an EGD and/or colonoscopy under sedation on the same day. The control group (n = 35) included healthy subjects who underwent screening via PET/CT only. FDG uptake in the tongue, uvula, epiglottis, vocal cords, esophagus, stomach, duodenum, liver, cecum, colon, anus, and muscle were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: Maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) in the tongue, pharynx, larynx, and esophagus did not significantly differ between the endoscopy and control groups. In contrast, mean SUVmax in the whole stomach was 18 % higher in the endoscopy group than in the control group (SUVmax: 2.96 vs. 2.51, P = 0.010). In the lower gastrointestinal track, SUVmax from the cecum to the rectum was not significantly different between the two groups, whereas SUVmax in the anus was 20 % higher in the endoscopy group than in the control group (SUVmax: 4.21 vs. 3.50, P = 0.002). SUVmax in the liver and muscle was not significantly different between the two groups. Mean volume of the stomach and mean cross section of the colon was significantly higher in the endoscopy group than in the control group (stomach: 313.28 cm3 vs. 209.93 cm3, P < 0.001, colon: 8.82 cm2 vs. 5.98 cm2, P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: EGD and colonoscopy under sedation does not lead to significant differences in SUVmax in most parts of the body. Only gastric FDG uptake in the EGD subjects and anal FDG uptake in the colonoscopy subjects was higher than uptake in those regions in the control subjects.
Authors: Lalitha K Shankar; John M Hoffman; Steve Bacharach; Michael M Graham; Joel Karp; Adriaan A Lammertsma; Steven Larson; David A Mankoff; Barry A Siegel; Annick Van den Abbeele; Jeffrey Yap; Daniel Sullivan Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2006-06 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: Pierre-Yves Le Roux; Cuong P Duong; Carlos S Cabalag; Bimal K Parameswaran; Jason Callahan; Rodney J Hicks Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2015-10-21 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Ronald Boellaard; Mike J O'Doherty; Wolfgang A Weber; Felix M Mottaghy; Markus N Lonsdale; Sigrid G Stroobants; Wim J G Oyen; Joerg Kotzerke; Otto S Hoekstra; Jan Pruim; Paul K Marsden; Klaus Tatsch; Corneline J Hoekstra; Eric P Visser; Bertjan Arends; Fred J Verzijlbergen; Josee M Zijlstra; Emile F I Comans; Adriaan A Lammertsma; Anne M Paans; Antoon T Willemsen; Thomas Beyer; Andreas Bockisch; Cornelia Schaefer-Prokop; Dominique Delbeke; Richard P Baum; Arturo Chiti; Bernd J Krause Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 9.236