HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH RSS TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: jnumed.108.061432v1 50/6/854    most recent Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Related articles in JNM Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Menezes, L. J. Articles by Groves, A. M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Menezes, L. J. Articles by Groves, A. M.

Vascular Inflammation Imaging with ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT: When to Image?

¹ Institute of Nuclear Medicine, University College Hospital, University College London, London, United Kingdom; and ² Brighton and Sussex University Hospital, Brighton, Sussex, United Kingdom

Correspondence: For correspondence or reprints contact: Ashley M. Groves, Institute of Nuclear Medicine, 5th Floor, University College Hospital, University College London, 235 Euston Rd., London NW1 2BU, U.K. E-mail: drashleygroves{at}hotmail.com

We prospectively investigated the ideal imaging time to measure vascular uptake after injection of ¹⁸F-FDG. Methods: A total of 17 patients with atherosclerotic abdominal aortic aneurysm underwent dynamic abdominal PET/CT using 2-min frames between 45 and 53, 57 and 65, 115 and 123, and 175 and 183 min after injection of ¹⁸F-FDG. For each period of dynamic imaging, vessel wall and lumen uptake were measured using the maximum standardized uptake value (SUV_max) and target-to-background ratio (TBR). Results: No significant difference in TBR across all time points (repeated measures ANOVA, P = 0.206) was observed, despite a significant difference in aortic wall and lumen uptake with time (repeated measures ANOVA, P = 0.02 and P < 0.001, respectively). There was no significant difference between aortic wall uptake at 60 min (SUV_max, 2.15 ± 0.11 SE) and 180 min (SUV_max, 1.99 ± 0.18 SE) (paired t test, P = 0.367). There was a significant difference in lumen uptake at 60 min (SUV_max, 2.4 ± 0.11 SE) and 180 min (SUV_max, 1.7 ± 0.1 SE) (paired t test, P = 0.001). There was no significant difference in TBR between 60 min (0.91 ± 0.03) and 180 min (1.01 ± 0.06 SE) (paired t test, P = 0.131). With increasing delayed imaging, there was increasing variability (SE) in the SUV_max for the aortic wall and TBRs. Conclusion: There was no significant advantage in imaging at 3 h over 1 h after ¹⁸F-FDG injection.

Key Words: PET/CT • vascular • radiotracer tissue kinetics • ¹⁸F-FDG • aneurysm • atherosclerosis • methodology • positron emission tomography

COPYRIGHT © 2009 by the Society of Nuclear Medicine, Inc.

Related articles in JNM:

This Month in JNM

JNM 2009 50: 11A-12A. [Full Text]  

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J. H.F. Rudd, M. Elkhawad, and Z. A. Fayad Vascular Imaging with 18F-FDG PET/CT: Optimal 18F-FDG Circulation Time? J. Nucl. Med., September 1, 2009; 50(9): 1560 - 1560. [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. W. Kotze, S. W. Jusuf, L. J. Menezes, B. F. Hutton, P. J. Ell, and A. M. Groves Reply: Vascular Imaging with 18F-FDG PET/CT: Optimal 18F-FDG Circulation Time? J. Nucl. Med., September 1, 2009; 50(9): 1560 - 1561. [Full Text] [PDF]