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 ReportGeneral Clinical Specialties

Optimizing the interval between G-CSF therapy and FDG PET imaging

Andrew Trout, Brian Turpin, Susan Sharp and Michael Gelfand
Journal of Nuclear Medicine May 2014, 55 (supplement 1) 366;
Andrew Trout
1Department of Radiology, Cincinnati Children's Hospital, Cincinnati, OH
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Brian Turpin
2Division of Oncology, Cincinnati Children's Hospital, Cincinnati, OH
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Susan Sharp
1Department of Radiology, Cincinnati Children's Hospital, Cincinnati, OH
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Michael Gelfand
1Department of Radiology, Cincinnati Children's Hospital, Cincinnati, OH
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
Loading

Abstract

366

Objectives To define the interval between granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) administration and FDG PET imaging that limits interference by stimulated marrow.

Methods FDG PET scans performed in patients with Ewing sarcoma or rhabdomyosarcoma were retrospectively reviewed by two reviewers blinded to G-CSF administration. Reviewers subjectively scored marrow activity (1-4) with regard to interference with clinical interpretation and measured standardized uptake values in the spine.

Results 44 FDG PET exams were reviewed in 22 patients, 18 of whom received pegfilgrastim and 4 of whom received filgrastim. There was substantial agreement in scoring between reviewers (α=0.633). Stimulated marrow was scored as potentially or definitely interfering in 19/44 scans (43.2%). Of the 18 patients treated with pegfilgrastim, the median time between G-CSF administration and imaging was 10 days (range:1-19 days) for scans with potential or definite marrow interference and 19.5 days (range:7-55 days) for scans without marrow interference (score≤2). No scan >10 days after pegfilgrastim administration had marrow activity considered definitely interfering. Of the 4 patients treated with filgrastim, subjective interference by marrow stimulation was present in only 1 scan (1 day after G-CSF). SUVmax in the spine was ≥3 (high enough to interfere) in 17/44 scans (38.6%). Median time between pegfilgrastim administration and imaging in patients with SUVmax ≥3 in the spine was 16 days (range:1-20 days). In patients with SUVmax <3, median time between pegfilgrastim administration and imaging was 10 days (range:2-55 days). The only patient who received filgrastim that had SUVmax ≥3 in the lumbar spine was imaged on the day after filgrastim administration.

Conclusions An interval of 19-20 days between pegfilgrastim administration and FDG PET scanning appears sufficient to limit interference by stimulated marrow. In patients treated with filgrastim, shorter intervals may suffice but additional study is needed to confirm this.

Previous
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of Nuclear Medicine
Vol. 55, Issue supplement 1
May 2014
  • 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.
Optimizing the interval between G-CSF therapy and FDG PET imaging
(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
Optimizing the interval between G-CSF therapy and FDG PET imaging
Andrew Trout, Brian Turpin, Susan Sharp, Michael Gelfand
Journal of Nuclear Medicine May 2014, 55 (supplement 1) 366;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Optimizing the interval between G-CSF therapy and FDG PET imaging
Andrew Trout, Brian Turpin, Susan Sharp, Michael Gelfand
Journal of Nuclear Medicine May 2014, 55 (supplement 1) 366;
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

General Clinical Specialties

  • ARRAY OF PET/CT FINDINGS RELATED TO COVID-19 VACCINATION OR INFECTION
  • 18F-FDG PET/CT Imaging of Infection and Inflammation
  • Association between diffuse F18-FDG thyroid uptake and thyroid dysfunction
Show more General Clinical Specialties

Pediatrics II

  • Post surgical 123I-MIBG SPECT/CT in neuroblastoma
  • A population of pediatric phantoms to investigate the tradeoff between radiation dose and image quality
  • The added value of optimized co-registered diagnostic CT scan for I-123 mIBG SPECT-CT in children with neuroblastoma
Show more Pediatrics II

Similar Articles

SNMMI

© 2025 SNMMI

Powered by HighWire