Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • JNM Supplement
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
    • Continuing Education
    • JNM Podcasts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Institutional and Non-member
    • Rates
    • Journal Claims
    • Corporate & Special Sales
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNM
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA requirements
  • Info
    • Reviewers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact Information
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • SNMMI
    • JNM
    • JNMT
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
  • SNMMI
    • JNM
    • JNMT
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Journal of Nuclear Medicine

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • JNM Supplement
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
    • Continuing Education
    • JNM Podcasts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Institutional and Non-member
    • Rates
    • Journal Claims
    • Corporate & Special Sales
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNM
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA requirements
  • Info
    • Reviewers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact Information
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • View or Listen to JNM Podcast
  • Visit JNM on Facebook
  • Join JNM on LinkedIn
  • Follow JNM on Twitter
  • Subscribe to our RSS feeds
Meeting ReportTechnologist Abstracts

MicroPET FDG mouse imaging: Evaluation of 50 consecutive tail vein injections

Douglass Vines, David Green and Harald Keller
Journal of Nuclear Medicine May 2011, 52 (supplement 1) 2311;
Douglass Vines
1Radiation Medicine Program, Princess Margaret Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
David Green
1Radiation Medicine Program, Princess Margaret Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Harald Keller
1Radiation Medicine Program, Princess Margaret Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
Loading

Abstract

2311

Objectives Intravenous (IV) injection of FDG in mice via the lateral tail vein is the most commonly used method of administration and can be technically challenging. Evaluation of the quality of FDG injection is necessary to determine if the PET scan is quantitatively accurate. The aim of this study was to evaluate 50 consecutive FDG injections in mice both qualitatively and quantitatively.

Methods During injection, qualitative evaluation was performed and classified according to specific criteria as good, intermediate, or poor. After 60 min, a 10 min body microPET scan and 2 min scan of the tail were acquired. Injection sites were quantitatively evaluated by determining mean and maximum percentage of the injected dose per gram (%ID/g). Validation of tail imaging in-vivo FDG compared to ex-vivo was performed on 7 extra mice by sacrificing them after scans, removing and re-scanning their tails, then measuring tail FDG ex-vivo in a gamma-counter. To assess baseline amounts of FDG in the tail without a tail injection, 3 more mice were injected by intraperitoneal (IP) method, imaged and quantitatively evaluated in the same way.

Results Validation of imaging to ex-vivo data yielded an excellent correlation with r-squared value of 0.95. Correlation of qualitative to quantitative methods yielded 42 matching good (mean 2.4, max 9.0 %ID/g), 2 intermediate and 1 poor IV injections. The %ID/g of good injections were confirmed by IP results mean 3.0, max 11.8 %ID/g. There were 5 cases of mismatching results, 1 false-negative, 4 false-positive for interstitial injections between the 2 methods, however using qualitative evaluation accuracy was true 90% (45/50) of the time. The overall success rate of good IV injections was 92% (46/50) using quantitative evaluation.

Conclusions A qualitative evaluation is all that is necessary if the IV injection is classified as good using our specific criteria. In uncertain, intermediate, or poor classifications, a scan and quantitative evaluation of the tail should be performed to aid in determining if the body PET scan is quantitatively accurate

Back to top

In this issue

Journal of Nuclear Medicine
Vol. 52, Issue supplement 1
May 2011
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
MicroPET FDG mouse imaging: Evaluation of 50 consecutive tail vein injections
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Journal of Nuclear Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Journal of Nuclear Medicine web site.
Citation Tools
MicroPET FDG mouse imaging: Evaluation of 50 consecutive tail vein injections
Douglass Vines, David Green, Harald Keller
Journal of Nuclear Medicine May 2011, 52 (supplement 1) 2311;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
MicroPET FDG mouse imaging: Evaluation of 50 consecutive tail vein injections
Douglass Vines, David Green, Harald Keller
Journal of Nuclear Medicine May 2011, 52 (supplement 1) 2311;
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
  • Info & Metrics

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

Technologist Abstracts

  • Linearity estimation of PET/CT scanner in list mode acquisition
  • 3D-OSEM vs FORE+OSEM: The optimal reconstruction algorithm in FDG PET tests with short acquisition time
  • A study to decrease exposure dose for the radiotechnologist in PET/CT
Show more Technologist Abstracts

Technologist Scientific Papers II

  • Improvement in the recovery coefficient of PET/CT images with PSF and TOF
  • 18F-DOPA PET/CT and enhanced CT scanning protocol for congenital hyperinsulinism: Initial UK experience
  • Effect of PSF and TOF on the PET/CT image quality at various noise levels
Show more Technologist Scientific Papers II

Similar Articles

SNMMI

© 2025 SNMMI

Powered by HighWire