JNM
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Related articles in JNM
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Schroeder, T.
Right arrow Articles by Venegas, J. G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Schroeder, T.
Right arrow Articles by Venegas, J. G.

PET Imaging of Regional 18F-FDG Uptake and Lung Function After Cigarette Smoke Inhalation

Tobias Schroeder1, Marcos F. Vidal Melo1, Guido Musch1, R. Scott Harris2, Tilo Winkler1 and Jose G. Venegas1

1 Department of Anesthesia and Critical Care, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; and 2 Pulmonary and Critical Care Unit, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts


Figure 1
View larger version (15K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		FIGURE 1.  Pulmonary tracer kinetics in sheep with largest response to smoke (s1) and sheep with smallest response to smoke (s5). (A and D) Mean lung activity calculated as average of all voxels within each lung after intravenous injection of 13NN-saline. (B and E) Mean lung activity of 18F-FDG and concentration of this tracer in blood plasma. (E and F) Patlak plots generated from 18F-FDG kinetics in C and D. Slope of linear regression of Patlak plots yields 18F-FDG influx constant Ki.

 

Figure 2
View larger version (18K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		FIGURE 2.  Mean values of lung function variables for all 5 sheep (s1–s5) in control and smoke-exposed lungs.

 

Figure 3
View larger version (38K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		FIGURE 3.  Parametric images of lung function variables in sheep with largest response to smoke (s1) and sheep with smallest response to smoke (s5). Smoke-exposed left lung is on right side of each image.

 

Figure 4
View larger version (15K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		FIGURE 4.  (Left) Graphs of Ki in control lung (thin line) and smoke-exposed lung (heavy line) in sheep s1–s5. (Right) Corresponding mean normalized distributions of Formula. Animals are ordered by heterogeneity of Ki distribution (SD(Ki)) in smoke-exposed lung.

 

Figure 5
View larger version (8K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		FIGURE 5.  Plot of heterogeneity in Ki, SD(Ki), vs. mean Ki in control lung ({circ}) and smoke-exposed lung (•). rs, Spearman rank correlation coefficient, was calculated from all data points.

 

Figure 6
View larger version (11K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		FIGURE 6.  Correlation of highest level of local inflammation (Ki,max) with lung functional parameters within each lung field. (A) Regional shunt fraction plotted against Ki,max in control lung ({circ}) and smoke-exposed lung (•). (B) Plot of heterogeneity of Formula distribution (cov2(log Formula)) in control lung ({circ}) and smoke-exposed lung (•) against Ki,max.

 

Figure 7
View larger version (10K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		FIGURE 7.  cov2(log Formula) in smoke-exposed lung plotted against that in control lung.

 




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE TECHNOLOGY THE JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE
Copyright © 2007 by the Society of Nuclear Medicine.