Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Investigating ultra-low-dose total-body [18F]-FDG PET/CT in colorectal cancer: initial experience

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

This study was to evaluate the effects of an ultra-low dose of [18F]-FDG on the image quality of total-body PET/CT and its lesion detectability in colorectal cancer (CRC).

Methods

Sixty-two CRC patients who underwent total-body PET/CT (uEXPLORER, United Imaging Healthcare, Shanghai, China) with an ultra-low dose (0.37 MBq/kg) of [18F]-FDG were enrolled in this retrospective study. The PET images were reconstructed with the entire 15-min dataset first and then split into 13-, 8-, 5-, 4-, 3-, 2-, and 1-min duration groups to simulate fast scanning images. For simplicity, the images reconstructed with the data from 15 to 1 min were referred to as G15, G13, and so on until G1. Subjective image quality was assessed with 5-point Likert scales. The objective image quality parameters included the SUVmax, SUVmean, and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of the liver and blood pool and the SUVmax and tumor-to-background ratio (TBR) of the lesions. G15 served as the control to evaluate lesion detectability.

Results

A total of 62 patients (43 men, 19 women; age 41–88, mean ± SD 64.0 ± 10.9 years) with 64 CRC primary tumor lesions and 10 low-grade intraepithelial neoplasia (LGIN) lesions were enrolled in this study. The subjective scores were highest for G15 (4.5 ± 0.5) and then decreased from G13 (4.3 ± 0.4) to G8 (3.7 ± 0.5). The liver SNR increased with the extension of acquisition time from G8 (17.2 ± 2.8) to G13 (20.6 ± 3.4) and G15 (21.9 ± 3.4). The liver SNR of G8 was not significantly different from that of G13 (p = 0.15) and was significantly different from that of G15 (p = 0.001). All 64 CRC lesions could be identified in all image groups, even on G1. One of ten LGINs was missed on G1, G2, and G3, and one LGIN was missed on G1, G2, G3, and G4. G15 served as the control, and 100% (48/48) lymph nodes could be found on G13 and G8 compared to 93.8% (45/48) lymph nodes on G5 and G4, 85.4% (41/48) lymph nodes on G3, 81.3% (39/48) lymph nodes on G2, and 77.1% (37/48) lymph nodes on G1. For liver metastases, there were no missed liver lesions on G13 and G8 and 3, 4, 6, 7, and 9 missed liver lesions on G5, G4, G3, G2, and G1, respectively. For other areas of metastasis, including the lung, peritoneum, and ovaries, there were no missed lesions in any group.

Conclusions

Total-body PET/CT with an ultra-low dose of [18F]-FDG can maintain satisfactory image quality and lesion detectability in CRC.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

  1. Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, et al. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68(6):394–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Benson AB, Venook AP, Al-Hawary MM, et al. Colon cancer, version 2.2021, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2021;19(3):329–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Rice SR, Chuong M, Koroulakis A, et al. The utility of PET/computed tomography for radiation oncology planning, surveillance, and prognosis prediction of gastrointestinal tumors. PET Clin. 2020;15(1):77–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Unterrainer M, Eze C, Ilhan H, et al. Recent advances of PET imaging in clinical radiation oncology. Radiat Oncol. 2020;15(1):88.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Bulens P, Thomas M, Deroose CM, et al. PET imaging in adaptive radiotherapy of gastrointestinal tumors. Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018;62(4):385–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Rodríguez-Fraile M, Cózar-Santiago MP, Sabaté-Llobera A, et al. FDG PET/CT in colorectal cancer. Rev Esp Med Nucl Imagen Mol. 2020;39(1):57–66.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Zhang X, Xie Z, Berg E, et al. Total-Body dynamic reconstruction and parametric imaging on the uEXPLORER. J Nucl Med. 2020;61(2):285–91.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Zhang X, Cherry SR, Xie Z, et al. Subsecond total-body imaging using ultrasensitive positron emission tomography. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2020;117(5):2265–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Spencer BA, Berg E, Schmall JP, et al. Performance evaluation of the uEXPLORER Total-body PET/CT scanner based on NEMA NU 2–2018 with additional tests to characterize long axial field-of-view PET scanners. J Nucl Med. 2021;62(6):861–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Badawi RD, Shi H, Hu P, et al. First human imaging studies with the EXPLORER Total-body PET Scanner. J Nucl Med. 2019;60(3):299–303.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Zhang YQ, Hu PC, Wu RZ, et al. The image quality, lesion detectability, and acquisition time of (18)F-FDG total-body PET/CT in oncological patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2020;47(11):2507–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Tan H, Sui X, Yin H, et al. Total-body PET/CT using half-dose FDG and compared with conventional PET/CT using full-dose FDG in lung cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2021;48(6):1966–75.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Liu G, Xu H, Hu P, et al. Kinetic metrics of (18)F-FDG in normal human organs identified by systematic dynamic total-body positron emission tomography. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2021;48(8):2363–72.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Liu G, Hu P, Yu H, et al. Ultra-low-activity total-body dynamic PET imaging allows equal performance to full-activity PET imaging for investigating kinetic metrics of (18)F-FDG in healthy volunteers. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2021;48(8):2373–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Lu YY, Chen JH, Ding HJ, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of pretherapeutic lymph node staging of colorectal cancer by 18F-FDG PET or PET/CT. Nucl Med Commun. 2012;33(11):1127–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Tsili AC, Alexiou G, Naka C, Argyropoulou MI. Imaging of colorectal cancer liver metastases using contrast-enhanced US, multidetector CT, MRI, and FDG PET/CT: a meta-analysis. Acta Radiol. 2021;62(3):302–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Boellaard R, Delgado-Bolton R, Oyen WJ, et al. FDG PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour imaging: version 2.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015;42(2):328–54.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Van Sluis J, Boellaard R, Somasundaram A, et al. Image quality and semiquantitative measurements on the biograph vision PET/CT system: initial experiences and comparison with the biograph mCT. J Nucl Med. 2020;61(1):129–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Zhang X, Zhou J, Cherry SR, et al. Quantitative image reconstruction for total-body PET imaging using the 2-meter long EXPLORER scanner. Phys Med Biol. 2017;62(6):2465–85.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Cherry SR, Jones T, Karp JS, et al. Total-body PET: maximizing sensitivity to create new opportunities for clinical research and patient care. J Nucl Med. 2018;59(1):3–12.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Tan H, Gu Y, Yu H, et al. Total-Body PET/CT: current applications and future perspectives. Am J Roentgenol. 2020;215(2):325–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Pan T, Einstein SA, Kappadath SC, et al. Performance evaluation of the 5-Ring GE Discovery MI PET/CT system using the national electrical manufacturers association NU 2–2012 Standard. Med Phys. 2019;46(7):3025–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Akamatsu G, Ishikawa K, Mitsumoto K, et al. Improvement in PET/CT image quality with a combination of point-spread function and time-of-flight in relation to reconstruction parameters. J Nucl Med. 2012;53(11):1716–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Halpern BS, Dahlbom M, Quon A, et al. Impact of patient weight and emission scan duration on PET/CT image quality and lesion detectability. J Nucl Med. 2004;45(5):797–801.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Lee JY, Yoon SM, Kim JT, et al. Diagnostic and prognostic value of preoperative (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography for colorectal cancer: comparison with conventional computed tomography. Intest Res. 2017;15(2):208–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Yang Z, Liu Z. The efficacy of (18)F-FDG PET/CT-based diagnostic model in the diagnosis of colorectal cancer regional lymph node metastasis. Saudi J Biol Sci. 2020;27(3):805–11.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Kantorová I, Lipská L, Bêlohlávek O, et al. Routine (18)F-FDG PET preoperative staging of colorectal cancer: comparison with conventional staging and its impact on treatment decision making. J Nucl Med. 2003;44(11):1784–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Marashdeh WM, Al-Mugbel KM, Alebbini MM, et al. Pitfalls and value of organ specific approach in evaluating indeterminate lesions detected on CT in colorectal cancer by [F18] FDG PET/CT. Eur J Radiol Open. 2020;7:100264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Kwak JY, Kim JS, Kim HJ, et al. Diagnostic value of FDG-PET/CT for lymph node metastasis of colorectal cancer. World J Surg. 2012;36(8):1898–905.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study was supported by the National Science Foundation for Scholars of China (No. 81901796), the Shanghai Sailing Program Supported by Shanghai Science and Technology Commission (No. 19YF1408300), Clinical Research Plan of Shanghai Hospital Development Center (No. SHDC2020CR3079B), and the Shanghai Science and Technology Committee (No. 20DZ2201800), Special Fund for Clinical Research, Young Program of Zhongshan Hospital of Fudan University (No. 2018ZSQN38, 2019ZSYQ28, 2020ZSLC63), the Shanghai “Rising Stars of Medical Talent”-Youth Development Program (No. HWJRS2019-720), and the Shanghai Municipal Key Clinical Specialty Project (No. SHSLCZDZK03401). Next Generation Information Infrastructure Construction Project (No. 201901014). Collaborative Innovation Center for Molecular Imaging Precision Medicine, Shanxi Medical University, Taiyuan, Shanxi, 030001, People’s Republic of China.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Hui Tan and Danjie Cai equally contributed to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, 180 Fenglin Road, Shanghai, 200032, China

    Hui Tan, Danjie Cai, Xiuli Sui, Chi Qi, Wujian Mao, Yiqiu Zhang, Guobing Liu, Haojun Yu, Shuguang Chen, Pengcheng Hu & Hongcheng Shi

  2. Nuclear Medicine Institute of Fudan University, Shanghai, 200032, China

    Hui Tan, Danjie Cai, Xiuli Sui, Chi Qi, Wujian Mao, Yiqiu Zhang, Guobing Liu, Haojun Yu, Shuguang Chen, Pengcheng Hu & Hongcheng Shi

  3. Shanghai Institute of Medical Imaging, Shanghai, 200032, China

    Hui Tan, Danjie Cai, Xiuli Sui, Chi Qi, Wujian Mao, Yiqiu Zhang, Guobing Liu, Haojun Yu, Shuguang Chen, Pengcheng Hu & Hongcheng Shi

  4. Cancer Prevention and Treatment Center, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China

    Hui Tan, Danjie Cai, Xiuli Sui, Chi Qi, Wujian Mao, Yiqiu Zhang, Guobing Liu, Haojun Yu, Shuguang Chen, Pengcheng Hu, Jianying Gu & Hongcheng Shi

  5. Department of Plastic Surgery, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, 200032, China

    Jianying Gu

Authors
  1. Hui Tan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Danjie Cai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Xiuli Sui
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Chi Qi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Wujian Mao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Yiqiu Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Guobing Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Haojun Yu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Shuguang Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Pengcheng Hu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Jianying Gu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Hongcheng Shi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Hui Tan and Danjie Cai were involved in the study design, data analysis, and manuscript preparation. Xiuli Sui, Chi Qi, Guobing Liu, and Wujian Mao helped with data processing. Haojun Yu and Shuguang Chen helped with image acquisition and processing. Yiqiu Zhang and Pengcheng Hu helped with revision of the manuscript. Jianying Gu and Hongcheng Shi designed the study and contributed to the data analysis and writing of the manuscript. All authors discussed the results and commented on the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hongcheng Shi.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Oncology—Digestive tract

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tan, H., Cai, D., Sui, X. et al. Investigating ultra-low-dose total-body [18F]-FDG PET/CT in colorectal cancer: initial experience. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 49, 1002–1011 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-021-05537-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-021-05537-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation