Current Problems in Diagnostic Radiology
Volume 35, Issue 2 , Pages 35-54 , March 2006

“Hot” Spots in Hybrid Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography Scanning of the Abdomen: Protocols, Indications, Interpretation, Responsibilities, and Reimbursements

  • Michael M. Maher, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiology, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland
    • Corresponding Author InformationReprint requests: Michael M. Maher, MD, Department of Radiology, Cork University Hospital, Wilton, Cork, Ireland
    • ,
  • Mannudeep K. Kalra, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiology; Emory University Hospital, Atlanta, GA
    • ,
  • Ajay Singh, MD

      Affiliations

    • Division of Abdominal Imaging and Intervention, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
    • ,
  • Michael A. Blake, MD

      Affiliations

    • Division of Abdominal Imaging and Intervention, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
    • ,
  • Suzanne L. Aquino, MD

      Affiliations

    • Division of Nuclear Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
    • ,
  • Alan J. Fischman, MD

      Affiliations

    • Division of Nuclear Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
    • ,
  • Peter R. Mueller, MD

      Affiliations

    • Division of Abdominal Imaging and Intervention, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.

References 

  1. Wahl RL . Why nearly all PET of abdominal and pelvic cancers will be performed as PET/CT . J Nucl Med . 2004;45(suppl 1):82S–95S
  2. Antoch G , Freudenberg LS , Beyer T , et al.   To enhance or not to enhance? 18F-FDG and CT contrast agents in dual-modality 18F-FDG PET/CT . J Nucl Med . 2004;45(suppl 1):56S–65S
  3. Bar-Shalom R , Yefremov N , Guralnik L , et al.   Clinical performance of PET/CT in evaluation of cancer (additional value for diagnostic imaging and patient management) . J Nucl Med . 2003;44:1200–1209
  4. Vogel WV , Oyen WJ , Barentsz JO , et al.   PET/CT (panacea, redundancy, or something in between?) . J Nucl Med . 2004;45(suppl 1):15S–24S
  5. Fischman AJ , Thrall JH . Who should read and interpret 18F-FDG PET studies? . J Nucl Med . 2003;44:1197–1199
  6. Wahl RL , Cody RL , Hutchins GD , et al.   Primary and metastatic breast carcinoma (initial clinical evaluation with PET with the radiolabeled glucose analogue 2-[F-18]-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose) . Radiology . 1991;179:765–770
  7. Miraldi F , Vesselle H , Faulhaber PF , et al.   Elimination of artifactual accumulation of FDG in PET imaging of colorectal cancer . J Clin Nucl Med . 1998;23:3–7
  8. Thomas CT , Meyer CR , Koeppe RA , et al.   A positron-emitting internal marker for identification of normal tissue by positron emission tomography (phantom studies and validation in patients) . Mol Imaging Biol . 2003;5:79–85
  9. Been LB , Suurmeijer AJ , Cobben DC , et al.   [18F]FLT-PET in oncology (current status and opportunities) . Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging . 2004;31:1659–1672
  10. Kamel IR , Cohade C , Neyman E , et al.   Incremental value of CT in PET/CT of patients with colorectal carcinoma . Abdom Imaging . 2004;29:663–668
  11. Nakamoto Y , Osman M , Cohade C , et al.   PET/CT (comparison of quantitative tracer uptake between germanium and CT transmission attenuation-corrected images) . J Nucl Med . 2002;43:1137–1143
  12. Cohade C , Osman M , Nakamoto Y , et al.   Initial experience with oral contrast in PET/CT (phantom and clinical studies) . J Nucl Med . 2003;44:412–416
  13. Dizendorf E , Hany TF , Buck A , et al.   Cause and magnitude of the error induced by oral CT contrast agent in CT-based attenuation correction of PET emission studies . J Nucl Med . 2003;44:732–738
  14. Kamel EM , Burger C , Buck A , et al.   Impact of metallic dental implants on CT-based attenuation correction in a combined PET/CT scanner . Eur Radiol . 2003;13:724–728
  15. Violante MR , Dean PB . Improved detectability of VX2 carcinoma in the rabbit liver with contrast enhancement in computed tomography . Radiology . 1980;134:237–239
  16. Schoder H , Erdi YE , Larson SM , et al.   PET/CT (a new imaging technology in nuclear medicine) . Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging . 2003;30:1419–1437
  17. de Juan R , Seifert B , Berthold T , et al.   Clinical evaluation of a breathing protocol for PET/CT . Eur Radiol . 2004;14:1118–1123
  18. Goerres GW , Burger C , Schwitter MR , et al.   PET/CT of the abdomen (optimizing the patient breathing pattern) . Eur Radiol . 2003;13:734–739
  19. Qureshy A , Kubota K , Iwata R , et al.   Localization and reduction of FDG intestinal uptake (tissue distribution and autoradiography study) . Nucl Med Commun . 2002;23:388
  20. Cohade C , Wahl RL . Applications of positron emission tomography/computed tomography image fusion in clinical positron emission tomography-clinical use, interpretation methods, diagnostic improvements . Semin Nucl Med . 2003;33:228–237
  21. Osman MM , Cohade C , Nakamoto Y , et al.   Clinically significant inaccurate localization of lesions with PET/CT (frequency in 300 patients) . J Nucl Med . 2003;44:240–243
  22. Teefey SA , Hildeboldt CC , Dehdashti F , et al.   Detection of primary hepatic malignancy in liver transplant candidates (prospective comparison of CT, MR imaging, US, and PET) . Radiology . 2003;226:533–542
  23. Shields AF , Graham NM , Spence AM . The role of PET in clinical oncology (a current status report) . Nucl Med Ann . 1995;129–168
  24. Nakamoto Y , Saga T , Ishimori T , et al.   FDG-PET of autoimmune-related pancreatitis (preliminary results) . Eur J Nucl Med . 2000;27:1835–1838
  25. Friess H , Langhans J , Ebert M , et al.   Diagnosis of pancreatic cancer by 2[18F]-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography . Radiology . 1994;192:79–86
  26. Bares R , Klever P , Hauptmann S , et al.   F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose PET in vivo evaluation of pancreatic glucose metabolism for detection of pancreatic cancer . Gut . 1995;36:771–777
  27. Boland GW , Hahn PF , Pena C , et al.   Adrenal masses (characterization with delayed contrast-enhanced CT) . Radiology . 1997;202:693–696
  28. Yun M , Kim W , Alnafisi N , et al.   18F-FDG PET in characterizing adrenal lesions detected on CT or MRI . J Nucl Med . 2001;42:1795–1799
  29. Boland GW , Goldberg MA , Lee MJ , et al.   Indeterminate adrenal mass in patients with cancer (evaluation at PET with 2-[F-18]-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose) . Radiology . 1995;194:131–134
  30. Maurea S , Klain M , Mainolfi C , et al.   The diagnostic role of radionuclide imaging in evaluation of patients with nonhypersecreting adrenal masses . J Nucl Med . 2001;42:884–892
  31. Shulkin BL , Thompson NW , Shapiro B , et al.   Pheochromocytomas (imaging with 2-[fluorine-18]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose PET) . Radiology . 1999;212:35–41
  32. Erasmus JJ , Patz EF , McAdams HP , et al.   Evaluation of adrenal masses in patients with bronchogenic carcinoma using 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography . AJR . 1997;168:1357–1360
  33. Lerman H , Metser U , Grisaru D , et al.   Normal and abnormal 18F-FDG endometrial and ovarian uptake in pre- and postmenopausal patients (assessment by PET/CT) . J Nucl Med . 2004;45:266–271
  34. Sironi S , Messa C , Mangili G , et al.   Integrated FDG PET/CT in patients with persistent ovarian cancer (correlation with histologic findings) . Radiology . 2004;233:433–440
  35. Goerres GW , Ziegler SI , Burger C , et al.   Artifacts at PET and PET/CT caused by metallic hip prosthetic material . Radiology . 2003;226:577–584

PII: S0363-0188(05)00079-4

doi: 10.1067/j.cpradiol.2005.12.002

Current Problems in Diagnostic Radiology
Volume 35, Issue 2 , Pages 35-54 , March 2006

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution