Advertisement

Molecular Imaging and Biology

, Volume 11, Issue 2, pp 118–122 | Cite as

Increasing Uptake Time in FDG-PET: Standardized Uptake Values in Normal Tissues at 1 versus 3 h

  • Bennett B. ChinEmail author
  • Edward D. Green
  • Timothy G. Turkington
  • Thomas C. Hawk
  • R. Edward Coleman
Research Article

Abstract

Objective

Positron emission tomography (PET) imaging at more than 1 h after 2-deoxy-2-[18F]fluoro-d-glucose (FDG) administration may result in less blood pool activity and possibly decreased normal FDG uptake in tissues such as liver. Lower normal background activity could be an important component of improved image contrast on delayed imaging. Increasing FDG uptake in normal organs, however, may mitigate the beneficial effects of blood pool clearance. The purpose of this study is to determine the normal tissue and blood pool FDG uptake at 1 and 3 h after injection.

Subjects and methods

Ninety-nine patients with known or suspected malignancy referred for FDG-PET–computed tomography (CT) were retrospectively evaluated. PET imaging was performed at either 1 h (60 ± 15 min; n = 50) or at 3 h (180 ± 15 min; n = 49) after FDG administration. Normal tissue FDG uptake without involvement by malignancy or influenced by artifact (misregistration, “brown fat,” focal muscle uptake, focal atherosclerotic disease) was confirmed by inspection of both the PET and CT scans. Aortic blood pool, adipose tissue, bone marrow, cerebellum, liver, lungs, muscle, and spleen were quantitatively evaluated by CT-guided region of interest analysis in three contiguous slices. Mean standardized uptake values (SUVs) were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance.

Results

Mean SUVs on the 3- versus 1-h images were significantly lower for aortic blood pool 13% (p < 0.0001) and adipose tissue 20% (p < 0.008). FDG uptake showed significant increases at 3 h compared to 1-h imaging in the cerebellum 40% (p < 0.0001), bone marrow 25% (p = 0.003), muscle 21% (p = 0.0004), and spleen 13% (p = 0.01). The liver and lung showed no significant differences (1%, p = 0.85; −2%, p = 0.62, respectively).

Conclusions

On FDG imaging at 3 h compared to 1 h, significant changes were apparent, but the magnitude of changes was modest overall. Three-hour delayed imaging demonstrated significantly lower aortic blood pool and adipose tissue activity and significantly higher cerebellum, muscle, spleen, and bone marrow activity. Hepatic and lung activities were not significantly different. These results suggest that previously reported improvements in tumor image contrast with delayed imaging may be primarily due to cumulative FDG uptake within the tumor rather than reduction in normal background activity.

Key words

Positron emission tomography Delayed imaging Fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose Normal uptake Standardized uptake value 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Robin Davis for data anonymization, data retrieval, and computer support.

References

  1. 1.
    Wang Y, Chiu E, Rosenberg J et al (2007) Standardized uptake value atlas: characterization of physiological 2-deoxy-2-[18F]fluoro-d-glucose uptake in normal tissues. Mol Imaging Biol 9:83–90PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Spence AM, Muzi M, Mankoff DA et al (2004) 18F-FDG-PET of gliomas at delayed intervals: improved distinction between tumor and normal gray matter. J Nucl Med 45:1653–1659PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mavi A, Urhan M, Yu JQ et al (2006) Dual time point 18F-FDG-PET imaging detects breast cancer with high sensitivity and correlates well with histologic subtypes. J Nucl Med 47:1440–1446PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Xiu Y, Bhutani C, Dhurairaj T et al (2007) Dual-time point FDG-PET imaging in the evaluation of pulmonary nodules with minimally increased metabolic activity. Clin Nucl Med 32:101–105PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nakamoto Y, Higashi T, Sakahara H et al (2000) Delayed (18)F-fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose positron emission tomography scan for differentiation between malignant and benign lesions in the pancreas. Cancer 89:2547–2554PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Higashi T, Saga T, Nakamoto Y et al (2002) Relationship between retention index in dual-phase (18)F-FDG-PET, and hexokinase-II and glucose transporter-1 expression in pancreatic cancer. J Nucl Med 43:173–180PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nishiyama Y, Yamamoto Y, Monden T et al (2005) Evaluation of delayed additional FDG-PET imaging in patients with pancreatic tumour. Nucl Med Commun 26:895–901PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nishiyama Y, Yamamoto Y, Fukunaga K et al (2006) Dual-time-point 18F-FDG-PET for the evaluation of gallbladder carcinoma. J Nucl Med 47:633–638PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lin WY, Tsai SC, Hung GU (2005) Value of delayed 18F-FDG-PET imaging in the detection of hepatocellular carcinoma. Nucl Med Commun 26:315–321PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lai CH, Huang KG, See LC et al (2003) Restaging of recurrent cervical carcinoma with dual-phase [18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose positron emission tomography. Cancer 100:544–552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ma SY, See LC, Lai CH et al (2003) Delayed (18)F-FDG-PET for detection of para-aortic lymph node metastases in cervical cancer patients. J Nucl Med 44:1775–1783PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dobert N, Hamscho N, Menzel C et al (2004) Limitations of dual time point FDG-PET imaging in the evaluation of focal abdominal lesions. Nuklearmedizin 43:143–149PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Demura Y, Tsuchida T, Ishizaki T et al (2003) 18F-FDG accumulation with PET for differentiation between benign and malignant lesions in the thorax. J Nucl Med 43:540–548Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hamada K, Tomita Y, Ueda T et al (2006) Evaluation of delayed 18F-FDG-PET in differential diagnosis for malignant soft-tissue tumors. Ann Nucl Med 20:671–675PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kubota K, Itoh M, Ozaki K et al (2001) Advantage of delayed whole-body FDG-PET imaging for tumour detection. Eur J Nucl Med 28:696–703PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zhuang H, Pourdehnad M, Lambright ES et al (2001) Dual time point 18F-FDG-PET imaging for differentiating malignant from inflammatory processes. J Nucl Med 42:1412–1417PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Yen TC, Chang YC, Chan SC et al (2005) Are dual-phase 18F-FDG-PET scans necessary in nasopharyngeal carcinoma to assess the primary tumour and loco-regional nodes? Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 32:541–548PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Minn H, Zasadny KR, Quint LE et al (1995) Lung cancer: reproducibility of quantitative measurements for evaluating 2-[F-18]-fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose uptake at PET. Radiology 196:167–173PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Weber WA, Ziegler SI, Thodtmann R et al (1999) Reproducibility of metabolic measurements in malignant tumors using FDG-PET. J Nucl Med 40:1771–1777PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Academy of Molecular Imaging 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bennett B. Chin
    • 1
    Email author
  • Edward D. Green
    • 1
  • Timothy G. Turkington
    • 1
  • Thomas C. Hawk
    • 1
  • R. Edward Coleman
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Radiology, Division of Nuclear MedicineDuke University Medical CenterDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations