Advertisement

Guidelines for 18F-FDG PET and PET-CT imaging in paediatric oncology

  • J. Stauss
  • C. Franzius
  • T. Pfluger
  • K. U. Juergens
  • L. Biassoni
  • J. Begent
  • R. Kluge
  • H. Amthauer
  • T. Voelker
  • L. Højgaard
  • S. Barrington
  • S. Hain
  • T. Lynch
  • K. Hahn
Guidelines

Abstract

Objective

The purpose of these guidelines is to offer to the nuclear medicine team a framework that could prove helpful in daily practice. These guidelines contain information related to the indications, acquisition, processing and interpretation of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (18F-FDG PET) in paediatric oncology. The Oncology Committee of the European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM) has published excellent procedure guidelines on tumour imaging with 18F-FDG PET (Bombardieri et al., Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 30:BP115–24, 2003 [2]. These guidelines, published by the EANM Paediatric Committee, do not intend to compete with the existing guidelines, but rather aim at providing additional information on issues particularly relevant to PET imaging of children with cancer.

Conclusion

The guidelines summarize the views of the Paediatric Committee of the European Association of Nuclear Medicine. They should be taken in the context of “good practice” of nuclear medicine and of any national rules, which may apply to nuclear medicine examinations. The recommendations of these guidelines cannot be applied to all patients in all practice settings. The guidelines should not be deemed inclusive of all proper procedures or exclusive of other procedures reasonably directed to obtaining the same results.

Keywords

18F-FDG PET Pediatric PET 

References

  1. 1.
    Bartenstein P, Asenbaum S, Catafau A, Halldin C, Pilowski L, Pupi A, et al. European Association of Nuclear Medicine. European Association of Nuclear Medicine procedure guidelines for brain imaging using [(18)F]FDG. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2002;29:BP43–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bombardieri E, Aktolun C, Baum RP, Bishof-Delaloye A, Buscombe J, Chatal JF, et al. FDG-PET: procedure guidelines for tumour imaging. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2003;30:BP115–24.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chugani HT. A critical period of brain development: studies of cerebral glucose utilization with PET. Prev Med 1998;27:184–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    El Fakhri G, Holdsworth C, Badawi RD, Santos PA, Moore SC, Van den Abbeele AD, Kijewski MF. Impact of acquisition geometry and patient habitus on lewsion detectability in whole body FDG-PET: a channelized hotelling observer study. In: IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE, 2002:3:1402–1405.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Franzius C, Juergens KU, Vormoor J. PET/CT with diagnostic CT in the evaluation of childhood sarcoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006;186:581.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Franzius C, Juergens KU, Schober O. Is PET/CT necessary in paediatric oncology?: For. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2006;33:960–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Franzius C, Vormoor J, Weckesser M, Jürgens KU, Schober O. Optimised PET/CT protocols with diagnostic contrast enhanced multi-slice CT and low-dose CT in paediatric patients: Analysis of more than 350 examinations. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2006;33(Suppl 2):124.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gelfand M, O’Hara S, Curtwright L, et al. Pre-medication to block [(18)F]FDG uptake in the brown adipose tissue of pediatric and adolescent patients. Pediatr Radiol 2005;35:984–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hahn K, Pfluger T. Is PET/CT necessary in paediatric oncology?: Against. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2006;33:966–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Holm S, Borgwardt L, Loft A, Graff J, Law I, Hojgaard L. Paediatric doses-a critical appraisal of the EANM paediatric dosage card. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2007 Nov;34:1713–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    ICRP Publication 80. Radiation dose to patients from radiopharmaceuticals. Annals of ICRP 1998;28:3, Pergamon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lassmann M, Biassoni L, Monsieurs M, Franzius C, Jacobs F. EANM Dosimetry and Paediatrics Committees. The new EANM paediatric dosage card. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2007;34:796–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lassmann M, Biassoni L, Monsieurs M, Franzius C. The new EANM Paediatric Dosage Card. Additional notes with respect to F-18. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2008; (in press).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Parysow O, Mollerach AM, Jager V, Racioppi S, San Roman J, Gerbaudo VH. Low-dose oral propranolol could reduce brown adipose tissue F-18 FDG uptake in patients undergoing PET scans. Clin Nucl Med 2007;32:351–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Söderlund V, Larsson SA, Jacobsson H. Reduction of FDG uptake in brown adipose tissue in clinical patients by a single dose of propranolol. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2007;34:1018–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Warbey VS, Schleyer PJ, Barrington SF, O’Doherty MJ. The new EANM paediatric dosage card - does it conform to ALARA for PET/CT? Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2007;34:1881–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Further Reading

  1. 1.
    Amthauer H, Furth C, Denecke T, Hundsdoerfer P, Voelker T, Seeger K, et al. FDG-PET in 10 children with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: initial experience in staging and follow-up. Klin Padiatr 2005;217:327–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barrington SF, Begent J, Lynch T, Schleyer P, Biassoni L, Ramsden W, et al. Guidelines for the use of PET-CT in children. Nucl Med Commun 2008;29(5):418–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Borgwardt L, Larsen HJ, Pedersen K, Hojgaard L. Practical use and implementation of PET in children in a hospital PET centre. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2003;30:1389–97.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brink I, Reinhardt MJ, Hoegerle S, Altehoefer C, Moser E, Nitzsche EU. Increased metabolic activity in the thymus gland studied with 18F -FDG PET: age dependency and frequency after chemotherapy. J Nucl Med 2001;42:591–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fahey FH, Palmer MR, Strauss KJ, et al. Dosimetry and adequacy of CT-based attenuation correction for pediatric PET: phantom study. Radiology 2007;243:96–104.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Franzius C, Sciuk J, Brinkschmidt C, Jurgens H, Schrober O. Evaluation of chemotherapy response in primary bone tumours with F-18 FDG positron emission tomography compared with histologically assessed tumour necrosis. Clin Nucl Med 2000;25:874–1.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Franzius C, Sciuk J, Daldrup-Link HE, Jurgens H, Schober O. FDG-PET for detection of osseous metastases from malignant primary bone tumours: comparison with bone scintigraphy. Eur J Nucl Med 2000;27:1305–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Franzius C, Daldrup-Link HE, Sciuk J, Rummeny EJ, Bielack S, Jurgens H, et al. FDG-PET for detection of pulmonary metastases from malignant primary bone tumors: comparison with spiral CT. Ann Oncol 2001;12:479–86.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Franzius C, Daldrup-Link HE, Wagner-Bohn A, Sciuk J, Heindel WL, Jürgens H, et al. FDG-PET for detection of recurrences from malignant primary bone tumors: comparison with conventional staging. Ann Oncol 2002;13:157–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Franzius C, Schober O. Assessment of therapy response by FDG PET in pediatric patients. Q J Nucl Med 2003;47:41–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gutzeit A, Debatin JF, Antoch G. Tumor staging with PET/CT. Detection of a second tumor. Rofo 2004;176:122–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hahn K, Pfluger T. Has PET become an important clinical tool in paediatric imaging? Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2004;31:615–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hawkins DS, Rajendran JG, Conrad EU 3rd, Bruckner JD, Eary JF. Evaluation of chemotherapy response in pediatric bone sarcomas by [F-18]-fluorodeoxy-d-glucose positron emission tomography. Cancer 2002;94:3277–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Herrmann S, Wormanns D, Pixberg M, Hunold A, Heindel WL, Jurgens H, et al. Staging in childhood lymphoma: differences between FDG-PET and CT. Nuklearmedizin 2005;44:1–7.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jacobs F, Thierens H, Piepsz A, Bacher K, Van de Wiele C, Ham H, Dierckx RA, European Association of Nuclear Medicine. Optimised tracer-dependent dosage cards to obtain weight-independent effective doses. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2005;32:581–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Juergens KU, Weckesser M, Stegger L, Franzius C, Beetz M, Schober O, et al. Tumor staging using whole-body high-resolution 16-channel PET-CT: does additional low-dose chest CT in inspiration improve the detection of solitary pulmonary nodules? Eur Radiol 2006;16:1131–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kaste S, Howard S, McCarville E, et al. 18F-FDG-avid sites mimicking active disease in pediatric Hodgkin’s. Pediatr Radiol. 2005;35:141–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kaste S. Issues specific to implementing PET-CT for pediatric oncology: what have we learned along the way? Pediatr Radiol 2004;34:205–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Körholz D, Kluge R, Wickmann L, Hirsch W, Lüders H, Lotz I, et al. Importance of 18F-Fluorodeoxy-d-2-glucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) for staging and therapy control of Hodgkin’s lymphoma in childhood and adolescence—consequences for the GPOH-HD 2003 protocol. Onkologie 2003;26:489–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kushner BH, Yeung HW, Larson SM, Kramer K, Cheung NK. Extending positron emission tomography scan utility to high-risk neuroblastoma: fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography as sole imaging modality in follow-up of patients. J Clin Oncol 2001;19:3397–405.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lucas JD, O’Doherty MJ, Wong JCH, et al. Evaluation of fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in the management of soft-tissue sarcomas. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 1998;80:441–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lucas JD, O’Doherty MJ, Cronin BF, Marsden PK, Lodge MA, McKee PH, et al. Prospective evaluation of soft tissue masses and sarcomas using fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography. Br J Surg 1999;86:550–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    McCarville MB, Christie R, Daw NC, Spunt SL, Kaste SC. PET/CT in evaluation of childhood sarcomas. Am J Roentgenol 2005;184:1293–304.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Montravers F, McNamara D, Landman-Parker J, et al. [18F]FDG in childhood lymphoma: clinical utility and impact on management. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2002;29:1155–65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    O’Hara SM, Donnelly LF, Coleman RE. Pediatric body applications of FDG PET. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1999;172:1019–24.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Shulkin BL. PET applications in pediatrics. Q J Nucl Med 1997;41:281–91.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Shulkin BL, Hutchinson RJ, Castle VP, Yanik GA, Shapiro B, Sisson JC. Neuroblastoma: positron emission tomography with 2-[fluorine-18]-fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose compared with metaiodobenzylguanidine scintigraphy. Radiology 1996;199:743–50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Stabin MG, Gelfand MJ. Dosimetry of pediatric nuclear medicine procedures. Q J Nucl Med 1998;42:93–112.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wegner E, Barrington S, Kingston J, et al. The impact of PET scanning on management of paediatric oncology patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2005;32:23–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© EANM 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Stauss
    • 1
  • C. Franzius
    • 2
  • T. Pfluger
    • 3
  • K. U. Juergens
    • 4
  • L. Biassoni
    • 5
  • J. Begent
    • 5
  • R. Kluge
    • 6
  • H. Amthauer
    • 7
  • T. Voelker
    • 7
  • L. Højgaard
    • 8
  • S. Barrington
    • 9
  • S. Hain
    • 10
  • T. Lynch
    • 11
  • K. Hahn
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyBrigham and Women’s HospitalBostonUSA
  2. 2.MR and PET/CT-CentreBremenGermany
  3. 3.Department of Nuclear MedicineLudwig-Maximilians-UniversityMunichGermany
  4. 4.Department of Clinical RadiologyUniversity Hospital MuensterMuensterGermany
  5. 5.Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS TrustLondonUK
  6. 6.Department of Nuclear MedicineUniversity of LeipzigLeipzigGermany
  7. 7.Campus Virchow-KlinikumCharité-Universitätsmedizin BerlinBerlinGermany
  8. 8.Department of Clinical Physiology and Nuclear Medicine and PET and Cyclotron UnitRigshospitalet, Copenhagen University HospitalCopenhagenDenmark
  9. 9.PET Imaging Centre at St. Thomas’, Guy’s, King’s and St. Thomas’ School of MedicineLondonUK
  10. 10.University College Hospitals NHS TrustLondonUK
  11. 11.Royal Victoria HospitalBelfastUK

Personalised recommendations