nach oben

Abdominal Radiology

Erschienen in:

01.02.2010

Whole body imaging in the abdominal cancer patient: pitfalls of PET-CT

verfasst von: Shaunagh McDermott, Stephen J Skehan

Erschienen in: Abdominal Radiology | Ausgabe 1/2010

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Proper interpretation of PET-CT images requires knowledge of the normal physiological distribution of the tracer, frequently encountered physiological variants, and benign pathological causes of FDG uptake that can be confused with a malignant neoplasm. In addition, not all malignant processes are associated with avid tracer uptake. A basic knowledge of the technique of image acquisition is also required to avoid pitfalls such as misregistration of anatomical and scintigraphic data. This article reviews these potential pitfalls as they apply to the abdomen and pelvis of patients with cancer.

Czernin J, Allen-Auerbach M, Schelbert HR (2007) Improvements in cancer staging with PET/CT: literature-based evidence as of September 2006. J Nucl Med 48(Suppl 1):78S–88S.PubMed

Cohade C, Osman M, Leal J, Wahl RL (2003) Direct comparison of (18)F-FDG PET and PET/CT in patients with colorectal carcinoma. J Nucl Med 44(11):1797–803.PubMed

Blake MA, Singh A, Setty BN, et al. (2006) Pearls and pitfalls in interpretation of abdominal and pelvic PET-CT. Radiographics 26(5):1335–1353.CrossRefPubMed

Osman MM, Cohade C, Nakamoto Y, et al. (2003) Clinically significant inaccurate localization of lesions with PET/CT: frequency in 300 patients. J Nucl Med 44(2):240–243.PubMed

Vogel WV, van Dalen JA, Wiering B, et al. (2007) Evaluation of image registration in PET/CT of the liver and recommendations for optimized imaging. J Nucl Med 48(6):910–919.CrossRefPubMed

Emmott J, Sanghera B, Chambers J, Wong WL (2008) The effects of N-butylscopolamine on bowel uptake: an 18F-FDG PET study. Nucl Med Commun 29(1):11–16.CrossRefPubMed

Kapoor V, McCook BM, Torok FS (2004) An introduction to PET-CT imaging. Radiographics 24(2):523–543.CrossRefPubMed

Sureshbabu W, Mawlawi O (2005) PET/CT imaging artifacts. J Nucl Med Technol 33(3):156–161. quiz 63–64.PubMed

Trojan J, Schroeder O, Raedle J, et al. (1999) Fluorine-18 FDG positron emission tomography for imaging of hepatocellular carcinoma. Am J Gastroenterol 94(11):3314–3319.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Anderson CD, Rice MH, Pinson CW, et al. (2004) Fluorodeoxyglucose PET imaging in the evaluation of gallbladder carcinoma and cholangiocarcinoma. J Gastrointest Surg 8(1):90–97.CrossRefPubMed

11.

Kim JY, Kim MH, Lee TY, et al. (2008) Clinical role of 18F-FDG PET-CT in suspected and potentially operable cholangiocarcinoma: a prospective study compared with conventional imaging. Am J Gastroenterol 103(5):1145–1151.CrossRefPubMed

12.

Rini JN, Leonidas JC, Tomas MB, Palestro CJ (2003) 18F-FDG PET versus CT for evaluating the spleen during initial staging of lymphoma. J Nucl Med 44(7):1072–1074.PubMed

13.

Sugawara Y, Zasadny KR, Kison PV, Baker LH, Wahl RL (1999) Splenic fluorodeoxyglucose uptake increased by granulocyte colony-stimulating factor therapy: PET imaging results. J Nucl Med 40(9):1456–1462.PubMed

14.

Lustberg MB, Aras O, Meisenberg BR (2008) FDG PET/CT findings in acute adult mononucleosis mimicking malignant lymphoma. Eur J Haematol 81(2):154–156.CrossRefPubMed

15.

Nakamoto Y, Saga T, Ishimori T, et al. (2000) FDG-PET of autoimmune-related pancreatitis: preliminary results. Eur J Nucl Med 27(12):1835–1838.CrossRefPubMed

16.

Bares R, Klever P, Hauptmann S, et al. (1994) F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose PET in vivo evaluation of pancreatic glucose metabolism for detection of pancreatic cancer. Radiology 192(1):79–86.PubMed

17.

Friess H, Langhans J, Ebert M, et al. (1995) Diagnosis of pancreatic cancer by 2[18F]-fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose positron emission tomography. Gut 36(5):771–777.CrossRefPubMed

18.

Yun M, Kim W, Alnafisi N, et al. (2001) 18F-FDG PET in characterizing adrenal lesions detected on CT or MRI. J Nucl Med 42(12):1795–1799.PubMed

19.

Maurea S, Mainolfi C, Bazzicalupo L, et al. (1999) Imaging of adrenal tumors using FDG PET: comparison of benign and malignant lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 173(1):25–29.PubMed

20.

Shulkin BL, Thompson NW, Shapiro B, Francis IR, Sisson JC (1999) Pheochromocytomas: imaging with 2-[fluorine-18]fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose PET. Radiology 212(1):35–41.PubMed

21.

Yeung HW, Grewal RK, Gonen M, Schoder H, Larson SM (2003) Patterns of (18)F-FDG uptake in adipose tissue and muscle: a potential source of false-positives for PET. J Nucl Med 44(11):1789–1796.PubMed

22.

Abouzied MM, Crawford ES, Nabi HA (2005) 18F-FDG imaging: pitfalls and artifacts. J Nucl Med Technol 33(3):145–155. quiz 62–63.PubMed

23.

Prabhakar HB, Sahani DV, Fischman AJ, Mueller PR, Blake MA (2007) Bowel hot spots at PET-CT. Radiographics 27(1):145–159.CrossRefPubMed

24.

Skehan SJ, Issenman R, Mernagh J, Nahmias C, Jacobson K (1999) 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron tomography in diagnosis of paediatric inflammatory bowel disease. Lancet 354(9181):836–837.CrossRefPubMed

25.

Hannah A, Scott AM, Akhurst T, et al. (1996) Abnormal colonic accumulation of fluorine-18-FDG in pseudomembranous colitis. J Nucl Med 37(10):1683–1685.PubMed

26.

Shreve PD, Anzai Y, Wahl RL (1999) Pitfalls in oncologic diagnosis with FDG PET imaging: physiologic and benign variants. Radiographics 19(1):61–77. quiz 150-151.PubMed

27.

Vesselle HJ, Miraldi FD (1998) FDG PET of the retroperitoneum: normal anatomy, variants, pathologic conditions, and strategies to avoid diagnostic pitfalls. Radiographics 18(4):805–823. discussion 23–24.PubMed

28.

Lerman H, Metser U, Grisaru D, et al. (2004) Normal and abnormal 18F-FDG endometrial and ovarian uptake in pre- and postmenopausal patients: assessment by PET/CT. J Nucl Med 45(2):266–271.PubMed

29.

Subhas N, Patel PV, Pannu HK, et al. 2005. Imaging of pelvic malignancies with in-line FDG PET-CT: case examples and common pitfalls of FDG PET. Radiographics 25(4):1031–1043.CrossRefPubMed

30.

Turlakow A, Yeung HW, Salmon AS, Macapinlac HA, Larson SM (2003) Peritoneal carcinomatosis: role of (18)F-FDG PET. J Nucl Med 44(9):1407–1412.PubMed

Titel: Whole body imaging in the abdominal cancer patient: pitfalls of PET-CT
verfasst von: Shaunagh McDermott
Stephen J Skehan
Publikationsdatum: 01.02.2010
Verlag: Springer-Verlag
Erschienen in: Abdominal Radiology / Ausgabe 1/2010
Print ISSN: 2366-004X
Elektronische ISSN: 2366-0058
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-008-9493-4

Update Radiologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Die Highlights vom Kongress des American College of Cardiology 2024

Springer Medizin

Whole body imaging in the abdominal cancer patient: pitfalls of PET-CT

Abstract

Neu im Fachgebiet Radiologie

Darf man die Behandlung eines Neonazis ablehnen?

Ein Drittel der jungen Ärztinnen und Ärzte erwägt abzuwandern

Endlich: Zi zeigt, mit welchen PVS Praxen zufrieden sind

Akuter Schwindel: Wann lohnt sich eine MRT?

Update Radiologie

Die Highlights vom Kongress des American College of Cardiology 2024

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2010

Long-term effect of endoscopic injection therapy with combined cyanoacrylate and ethanol for gastric fundal varices in relation to portal hemodynamics

Evaluation of entire gastric fundic and esophageal varices secondary to posthepatitic cirrhosis: portal venography using 64-row MDCT

Spectrum of imaging findings on MRI and CT after uterine artery embolization

MDCT findings in primary amyloidosis of the greater omentum and mesentery: a case report

Therapeutic endoscopy of localized gastric varices: pretherapy screening and posttreatment evaluation with MDCT portography

Double-contrast magnetic resonance imaging of the small and large bowel: effectiveness in the evaluation of inflammatory bowel disease

Neu im Fachgebiet Radiologie

Darf man die Behandlung eines Neonazis ablehnen?

Ein Drittel der jungen Ärztinnen und Ärzte erwägt abzuwandern

Endlich: Zi zeigt, mit welchen PVS Praxen zufrieden sind

Akuter Schwindel: Wann lohnt sich eine MRT?

Update Radiologie