|
|
||||||||
General Clinical Specialties: General Practice-OncologyGeneral PET-CT and Abdominal Malignancies |
1 Div Nuc Med, Wash Hosp Ctr, Wash, District of Columbia
168
Objectives: BF uptake of 18-FDG on PET limits the ability to assess for cancer. We previously reported a significant decrease in BF 18-FDG uptake by CET in patients (pts) without the use of drugs [Mol Imag Bio 2006;8:24]. The objective of this study was to expand and validate our initial series of only 10 pts regarding the effectiveness of CET to reduce BF 18-FDG uptake on PET.
Methods: A retrospective review was performed (Jan 2002-Oct 2007) of pts who had 1) a pattern of 18-FDG uptake on non-CET PET consistent with BF, 2) no evidence of cancer by CT in the regions of interest noted below, 3) a repeat scan with CET within 4 mo of the 1st PET, and 4) no change in the use of drugs known to reduce BF 18-FDG uptake (e.g. benzodiazepine, B-blockers, reserpine). The technique for performing 18-FDG PET and CET is available in the above reference. The non-CET and CET PET images were blinded/randomized, and 3 physicians assessed 3 regions (right/left neck and paraspinal area) semiquantitatively by the following scale: 0 (background [bkgd]), 1+ (> bkgd, < liver), 2+ (equal to liver), 3+ (> liver). SUV data was recorded. Results were analyzed using a 2-tail T-test.
Results: Of 8640 18-FDG PETs performed, 30 pts met the above criteria. The median age was 36 (range 12-60) with 4 males/26 females. The mean/standard deviation of the differences (non-CET minus CET) of the grades for right neck, left neck and paraspinal regions were for reader 1:(2.1/1.37), (1.95/1.43), (1.85/1.26); reader 2 (2.3/1.40), (1.70/1.13), (1.77/1.13); reader 3 (2.17/1.17), (2.20/1.18), (0.50/1.30). For maximum SUV scores: (3.4/2.9), (3.3/2.9), (1.77/1.13). All p values were <0.001.
Conclusions: In an expanded series, our study validated that CET effectively reduces 18-FDG uptake in BF on PET.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||