Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Can Dynamic Whole-Body FDG PET Imaging Differentiate between Malignant and Inflammatory Lesions?
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Can Dynamic Whole-Body FDG PET Imaging Differentiate between Malignant and Inflammatory Lesions?
Do you wish to request the book?
Can Dynamic Whole-Body FDG PET Imaging Differentiate between Malignant and Inflammatory Lesions?
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Can Dynamic Whole-Body FDG PET Imaging Differentiate between Malignant and Inflammatory Lesions?
2022
Overview
Background: Investigation of the clinical feasibility of dynamic whole-body (WB) [18F]FDG PET, including standardized uptake value (SUV), rate of irreversible uptake (Ki), and apparent distribution volume (Vd) in physiologic tissues, and comparison between inflammatory/infectious and cancer lesions. Methods: Twenty-four patients were prospectively included to undergo dynamic WB [18F]FDG PET/CT for clinically indicated re-/staging of oncological diseases. Parametric maps of Ki and Vd were generated using Patlak analysis alongside SUV images. Maximum parameter values (SUVmax, Kimax, and Vdmax) were measured in liver parenchyma and in malignant or inflammatory/infectious lesions. Lesion-to-background ratios (LBRs) were calculated by dividing the measurements by their respective mean in the liver tissue. Results: Seventy-seven clinical target lesions were identified, 60 malignant and 17 inflammatory/infectious. Kimax was significantly higher in cancer than in inflammatory/infections lesions (3.0 vs. 2.0, p = 0.002) while LBRs of SUVmax, Kimax, and Vdmax did not differ significantly between the etiologies: LBR (SUVmax) 3.3 vs. 2.9, p = 0.06; LBR (Kimax) 5.0 vs. 4.4, p = 0.05, LBR (Vdmax) 1.1 vs. 1.0, p = 0.18). LBR of inflammatory/infectious and cancer lesions was higher in Kimax than in SUVmax (4.5 vs. 3.2, p < 0.001). LBRs of Kimax and SUVmax showed a strong correlation (Spearman’s rho = 0.83, p < 0.001). Conclusions: Dynamic WB [18F]FDG PET/CT is feasible in a clinical setting. LBRs of Kimax were higher than SUVmax. Kimax was higher in malignant than in inflammatory/infectious lesions but demonstrated a large overlap between the etiologies.
Publisher
MDPI AG,MDPI
Subject
