18F-FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY IN CANCER PATIENTS: A WHOLE-BODY EXAMINATION PROCEDURE
https://doi.org/10.17650/1994-4098-2009-0-3-4-70-77
Abstract
Positron emission tomography (PET) is one of the current techniques of molecular radionuclide imaging, which provides a qualitative and quantitative assessment of biochemical processes occurring in a living organism. The paper contains information on how to per- form 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose PET for whole-body examination. It analyzes factors that influence the accuracy of obtained results, methods for PET image analysis, and reasons for possible diagnostic errors.
About the Authors
O. V. Mukhortova
A.N. Bakulev Research Center of Cardiovascular Surgery
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
I. P. Aslanidi
A.N. Bakulev Research Center of Cardiovascular Surgery
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
L. A. Ashrafyan
Russian X-ray Radiology Research Center, Russian Agency for Medical Technologies, Moscow
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
I. V. Shurupova
A.N. Bakulev Research Center of Cardiovascular Surgery
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
E. P. Derevyanko
A.N. Bakulev Research Center of Cardiovascular Surgery
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
T. A. Katunina
A.N. Bakulev Research Center of Cardiovascular Surgery
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
D. B. Alimardonov
Russian X-ray Radiology Research Center, Russian Agency for Medical Technologies, Moscow
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
A. V. Ulyanova
Russian X-ray Radiology Research Center, Russian Agency for Medical Technologies, Moscow
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
References
1. Bombardieri E., Aktolun C., Baum R.P. et al. FDG-PET procedure guidelines for tumor imaging. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imag 2003;30(12):115—24.
2. Stauss J., Franzius C., Pfluger T. et al. Guidelines for 18F-FDG-PET and PET- CT imaging in paediatric oncology. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imag 2008;35(8): 1581—8.
3. Shankar L.K., Hoffman J.M., Bacharach S. et al. Consensus recom- mendations for the use of 18F-FDG-PET as an indicator of therapeutic response in patients in National Cancer Institute Trials. J Nucl Med 2006;47(6):1059—66.
4. Delbeke D. Onoclogical applications of FDG-PET imaging. J Nucl Med 1999;40:1706—15.
5. Основные санитарные правила обеспечения радиационной безопас- ности (ОСПОРБ-99), СП 2.6.1.799— 99. М.: Минздрав России, 2000.
6. Wahl R.L., Henry C.A., Ethier S.P. Serum glucose: effects on tumor and nor- mal tissue accumulation of 2-[F-18]-flu- oro-2-deoxy-D-glucose in rodents with mammary carcinoma. Radiology 1992;183:643—7.
7. Thie J.A., Smith G.T., Hubner K.F. 2-Deoxy-2-[F-18]fluoro-D-glucose- positron emission tomography sensitivity to serum glucose: a survey and diagnostic applications. Mol Imag Biol 2005;7:361—8.
8. Buringer T. PET instrumentation: what are the limits? Semin Nucl Med 1998;28:247—67.
9. Patton J.A., Turkington T.G. Coincidence imaging with a dual-head scintillation camera. J Nucl Med 1999;40(3):432—41.
10. Ell P.J., von Schulthess G.K. PET/CT a new road map. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imag 2002;29:719—20.
11. Buchert R., Bohuslavizki K.H., Mester J. et al. Quality assurance in PET: evaluation of the clinical relevance of detector defects. J Nucl Med 1999;40:1657—65.
12. Fludeoxyglucose (18F) Injection 01/2002:1325. Eur Pharmacop 2002;4:2316—9.
13. Margery J., Bonaerdel G., Vaylet F. et al. New dietary guidelines before FDG-PET, or how to simply improve validity. Rev Pneumol Clin 2002;58:359.
14. Moran J.K., Lee B.K., Blaufox M.D. Optimization of urinary FDG excretion during PET imaging. J Nucl Med 1999;40:1352—7.
15. SЪderlund V., Larsson S.A., Jacobsson H. Reduction of FDG uptake in brown adipose tissue in clinical patients by a single dose of propranolol. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imag 2007;34:1018—22.
16. Lindholm P., Minn H., Leskinen-Kallio S. et al. Influence of the blood glucose concentration on FDG uptake in cancer — a PET study. J Nucl Med 1993;34:1—6.
17. Zhao S., Kuge Y., Tsukamoto E. et al. Effects of insulin and glucose loading on FDG uptake in experimental malignant tumours and inflammatory lesions. Eur J Nucl Med 2001;28:730—5.
18. Нормы радиационной безопасности (НРБ-99), СП 2.6.1.758—99. М.: Минздрав России, 1999.
19. ICRP 80 - radiation dose to patients from radiopharmaceuticals. Annals of the ICRP volume 28/3 (ICRP). Elsevier Science, 2000.
20. Lartizien C., Comtat C., Kinahan P.E. et al. Optimization of injected dose based on noise equivalent count rates for 2- and 3-dimansional whole body PET. Nucl Med 2002;43:1268—78.
21. Thie J.A., Hubner K.F., Smith G.T. Optimizing imaging time for improved performance in oncology PET studies. Mol Imag Biol 2002;4:238—44.
22. Beaulieu S., Kinahan P., Tseng J. et al. SUV varies with time after injection in (18)F-FDG-PET of breast cancer: characterization and method to adjust for time differences. J Nucl Med 2003;44:1044—50.
23. Bombardieri E., Crippa F. The increasing impact of PET in the diagnostic work-up of cancer patients. Nucl Med Annual. Philadelphia: Lippincott, 2002. p. 75—121.
24. Бокерия Л.А., Асланиди И.П., Ширяев С.В. и др. Позитронно-эмиссионная томография при раке молочной железы. Анн хир 2005;(2):38—43.
25. Weber W.A., Ziegler S.I., Thodtmann R. et al. Reproducibility of metabolic measurements in malignant tumors using FDG-PET. J Nucl Med 1999;40:1771—7.
26. Ramos C.D., Erdi Y., Gonen M. et al. FDG-PET standardized uptake val- ues in normal anatomical structures using iterative reconstruction segmented atten- uation correction and filtered backpro- jection. Eur J Nucl Med 2001;28: 155—64.
27. Sugawara Y., Zasadny K.R., Neuhoff A.W., Wahl R.L. Reevaluation of the standardized uptake value for FDG: variations with body weight and methods for correction. Radiology 1999;213: 521—5.
28. Boellaard R., Krak N.C., Hoekstra O.S., Lammertsma A.A. Effects of noise, image resolution, and ROI defi- nition on the accuracy of standard uptake values: a simulation study. J Nucl Med 2004;45:1519—27.
29. Stahl A., Ott K., Schwaiger M., Weber W.A. Comparison of different SUV-based methods for monitoring cytotoxic therapy with FDG PET. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imag 2004;31:1471—8.
30. Sundaram S.K., Freedman N.M., Carrasquillo J.A. et al. Simplified kinetic analysis of tumor 18F-FDG uptake: a dynamic approach. J Nucl Med 2004;45:1328—33.
31. Graham M.M., Peterson L.M., Hayward R.M. Comparison of simplified quantitative analyses of FDG uptake. Nucl Med Biol 2000;27:647—55.
32. Lowe V.J., Delong D.M., Hoffman J.M., Coleman R.E. Optimum scanning protocol for FDG-PET evalua- tion of pulmonary malignancy. J Nucl Med 1995;36:883—7.
33. Chen C.H., Muzie R.F., Nelson A.D. Jr. et al. Simultaneous recovery of size and radioactivity concen- tration of small spheroids with PET data. J Nucl Med 1999;40:118—30.
34. Faulhaber P.F., Mehta L., Echt E.A. et al. Perfecting the practice of FDG- PET: Pitfalls and artifacts 149-214. Nucl Med Annual L.M. Freeman Ed. Lippincott Philadelphia, 2002.
35. Diederichs C.G., Staib L., Glatting G. et al. FDG-PET: elevated plasma glucose reduces both uptake and detection rate of pancreatic malignancies. J Nucl Med 1998;39:1030—3.
36. Engel H., Steinert H., Buck A. et al. Whole-body PET: physiologic and arti- factual fluorodeoxyglucose accumula- tions. J Nucl Med 1996;37:441—6.
37. Bleckmann C.B., Dose J., Bohuslavizki K.H. et al. Effect of attenu- ation correction on lesion detectability in FDG-PET of breast cancer. J Nucl Med 1999;40:2021—4.
38. Cook G.J., Maisey M.N., Fogelman I. Normal variants, artefacts and interpretative pitfalls in PET imaging with 18-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose and car- bon-11 methionine. Eur J Nucl Med 1999;26:1363—78.
39. Stumpe K.D.M., Dazzi H., Schaffner A. et al. Infection imaging using whole-body FDG-PET. Eur J Nucl Med 2000;27:822—32.
40. Spaepen K., Stroobants S., Dupont P. et al. 18F-FDG-PET monitoring of tumour response to chemotherapy: does 18F-FDG uptake correlated with the viable tumour cell fraction? Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imag 2003;30:682—8.
41. Castellucci P., Zinzani P., Nanni C. et al. 18F-FDG-PET early after radiother- apy in lymphoma patients. Cancer Biother Radiopharm 2004;19:606—12. 42. Avril N.E., Weber W.A. Monitoring response to treatment in patients utilizing PET. Radiol Clin North Am 2005;43:189—204.
Review
For citations:
Mukhortova O.V., Aslanidi I.P., Ashrafyan L.A., Shurupova I.V., Derevyanko E.P., Katunina T.A., Alimardonov D.B., Ulyanova A.V. 18F-FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY IN CANCER PATIENTS: A WHOLE-BODY EXAMINATION PROCEDURE. Tumors of female reproductive system. 2009;(3-4):70-77. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17650/1994-4098-2009-0-3-4-70-77
Views:
604
Email this article 