Imaging of Coronary Inflammation with FDG-PET: Feasibility and Clinical Hurdles

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

1. 1.
   Miniño AM, Xu J, Kochanek KD, Tejada-Vera B. Death in the United States, 2007. NCHS Data Brief. 2009 Dec;(26):1–8.Google Scholar
2. 2.
   Naghavi M, Libby P, Falk E, Casscells SW, et al. From Vulnerable Plaque to Vulnerable Patient A Call for New Definitions and Risk Assessment Strategies: Part I. Circulation. 2003;108:1664–72.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
3. 3.
   Virmani R, Kolodgie FD, Burke AP, Farb A, Schwartz SM. Lessons from sudden coronary death: a comprehensive morphological classification scheme for atherosclerotic lesions. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2000;20:1262–75.PubMedGoogle Scholar
4. 4.
   Ambrose JA, Tannenbaum MA, Alexopoulos D, et al. Angiographic progression of coronary artery disease and the development of myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1988;12:56–62.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
5. 5.
   Falk E, Shah PK, Fuster V. Coronary plaque disruption. Circulation. 1995;92:657–71.PubMedGoogle Scholar
6. 6.
   Schlendorf KH, Nasir K, Blumenthal RS. Limitations of the Framingham risk score are now much clearer. Prev Med. 2009;48:115–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
7. 7.
   Karim R, Hodis HN, Detrano R, et al. Relation of Framingham risk score to subclinical atherosclerosis evaluated across three arterial sites. Am J Cardiol. 2008;102:825–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
8. 8.
   Michos ED, Nasir K, Braunstein JB, et al. Framingham risk equation underestimates subclinical atherosclerosis risk in asymptomatic women. Atherosclerosis. 2006;184:201–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
9. 9.
   Muller JE, Abela GS, Nesto RW, Tofler GH. Triggers, acute risk factors and vulnerable plaques: the lexicon of a new frontier. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1994;23:809–13.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
10. 10.
    Libby P, Schoenbeck U, Mach F, Selwyn AP, Ganz P. Current concepts in cardiovascular pathology: the role of LDL cholesterol in plaque rupture and stabilization. Am J Med. 1998;104:14S–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
11. 11.
    Davies MJ, Woolf N, Rowles P, Richardson PD. Lipid and cellular constituents of unstable human aortic plaques. Basic Res Cardiol. 1994;89:33–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
12. 12.
    Kolodgie FD, Burke AP, Farb A, et al. The thin-cap fibroatheroma: a type of vulnerable plaque: the major precursor lesion to acute coronary syndromes. Curr Opin Cardiol. 2001;16:285–92.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
13. 13.
    Kaim AH, Weber B, Kurrer MO, et al. Autoradiographic quantification of 18F-FDG uptake in experimental soft-tissue abscesses in rats. Radiology. 2002;223:446–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
14. 14.
    Kubota R, Kubota K, Yamada S, Tada M, Ido T, Tamahashi N. Microautoradiographic study for the differentiation of intratumoral macrophages, granulation tissues and cancer cells by the dynamics of fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose uptake. J Nucl Med. 1994;35:104–12.PubMedGoogle Scholar
15. 15.
    Newsholme P, Newsholme EA. Rates of utilization of glucose, glutamine and oleate and formation of end-products by mouse peritoneal macrophages in culture. Biochem J. 1989;261:211–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
16. 16.
    Yamada S, Kubota K, Kubota R, Ido T, Tamahashi N. High accumulation of fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose in turpentine induced inflammatory tissue. J Nucl Med. 1995;36:1301–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
17. 17.
    Babior BM. The respiratory burst of phagocytes. J Clin Invest. 1984;73:599–601.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
18. 18.
    Hara M, Goodman PC, Leder RA. FDG-PET finding in early-phase Takayasu arteritis. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1999;23:16–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
19. 19.
    Meller J, Altenvoerde G, Munzel U, et al. Fever of unknown origin: prospective comparison of [18F]FDG imaging with a double-head coincidence camera and gallium-67 citrate SPET. Eur J Nucl Med. 2000;27:1617–25.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
20. 20.
    Blockmans D, Maes A, Stroobants S, et al. New arguments for a vasculitic nature of polymyalgia rheumatica using positron emission tomography. Rheumatology. 1999;38:444–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
21. 21.
    Libby P. Coronary artery injury and the biology of atherosclerosis: inflammation, thrombosis, and stabilization. Am J Cardiol. 2000;86:3J–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
22. 22.
    Sluimer JC, Daemen MJ. Novel concepts in atherogenesis: angiogenesis and hypoxia in atherosclerosis. J Pathol. 2009;218:7–29.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
23. 23.
    Strauss HW, Dunphy M, Tokita N. Imaging the vulnerable plaque: a scintillating light at the end of the tunnel? J Nucl Med. 2004;45:1106–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
24. 24.
    Seshiah PN, Kereiakes DJ, Vasudevan SS, et al. Activated monocytes induce smooth muscle cell death: role of macrophage colony-stimulating factor and cell contact. Circulation. 2002;105:174–80.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
25. 25.
    Tawakol A, Migrino RQ, Hoffmann U, et al. Noninvasive in vivo measurement of vascular inflammation with F-18 fluorodeoxy glucose positron emission tomography. J Nucl Cardiol. 2005;12:294–301.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
26. 26.
    Ogawa M, Ishino S, Mukai T, et al. 18F-FDG accumulation in atherosclerotic plaques: immunohistochemical and PET imaging study. J Nucl Med. 2004;45:1245–50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
27. 27.
    Aziz K, Berger K, Claycombe K, et al. Noninvasive detection and localization of vulnerable plaque and arterial thrombosis with computed tomography angiography/positron emission tomography. Circulation. 2008;117:2061–70.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
28. 28.
    Ogawa M, Magata Y, Kato T, et al. Application of 18F-FDG PET for monitoring the therapeutic effect of antiinflammatory drugs on stabilization of vulnerable atherosclerotic plaques. J Nucl Med. 2006;47:1845–50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
29. 29.
    Davies JR, Izquierdo-Garcia D, Rudd JH, et al. FDG-PET can distinguish inflamed from non-inflamed plaque in an animal model of atherosclerosis. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2010;26:41–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
30. 30.
    Worthley SG, Zhang ZY, Machac J, et al. In vivo non-invasive serial monitoring of FDG-PET progression and regression in a rabbit model of atherosclerosis. Int J Cardiol Imaging. 2009;25:251–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
31. 31.
    Théron J, Tyler JL. Takayasu’s arteritis of the aortic arch: endovascular treatment and correlation with positron emission tomography. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 1987;8:621–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
32. 32.
    Yun M, Yeh D, Araujo L, et al. F-18 FDG uptake in the large arteries: a new observation. Clin Nucl Med. 2001;26:314–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
33. 33.
    Bural GG, Torigian DA, Chamroonrat W, et al. FDG-PET is an effective imaging modality to detect and quantify age-related atherosclerosis in large arteries. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2008;35:562–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
34. 34.
    Joly L, Djaballah W, Koehl G, et al. Aortic inflammation, as assessed by hybrid FDG-PET/CT imaging, is associated with enhanced aortic stiffness in addition to concurrent calcification. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2009;36:979–85.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
35. 35.
    Rudd JH, Myers KS, Bansilal S, et al. Relationships among regional arterial inflammation, calcification, risk factors, and biomarkers: a prospective fluorodeoxyglucose positron-emission tomography/computed tomography imaging study. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2009;2:107–15.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
36. 36.
    Kim TN, Kim S, Yang SJ, et al. Vascular inflammation in patients with impaired glucose tolerance and type 2 diabetes: analysis with 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2010;3:142–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
37. 37.
    Rudd JH, Warburton EA, Fryer TD, et al. Imaging atherosclerotic plaque inflammation with [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography. Circulation. 2002;105:2708–11.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
38. 38.
    Tawakol A, Migrino RQ, Bashian GG, et al. In vivo 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography imaging provides a noninvasive measure of carotid plaque inflammation in patients. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;48:1818–24.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
39. 39.
    Davies JR, Rudd JH, Fryer TD, et al. Identification of culprit lesions after transient ischemic attack by combined 18F fluorodeoxyglucose positron-emission tomography and high-resolution magnetic resonance imaging. Stroke. 2005;36:2642–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
40. 40.
    Silvera SS, Aidi HE, Rudd JH, et al. Multimodality imaging of atherosclerotic plaque activity and composition using FDG-PET/CT and MRI in carotid and femoral arteries. Atherosclerosis. 2009;207(1):139–43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
41. 41.
    Derdelinckx I, Maes A, Bogaert J, Mortelmans L, Blockmans D. Positron emission tomography scan in the diagnosis and follow-up of aortitis of the thoracic aorta. Acta Cardiol. 2000;55:193–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
42. 42.
    Meller J, Strutz F, Siefker U, et al. Early diagnosis and follow-up of aortitis with [(18)F]FDG PET and MRI. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2003;30(5):730–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
43. 43.
    Tatsumi M, Cohade C, Nakamoto Y, Wahl RL. Fluorodeoxyglucose uptake in the aortic wall at PET/CT: possible finding for active atherosclerosis. Radiology. 2003;229(3):831–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
44. 44.
    Graebe M, Pedersen SF, Borgwardt L, et al. Molecular pathology in vulnerable carotid plaques: correlation with [18]-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET). Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2009;37(6):714–21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
45. 45.
    Rudd JH, Myers KS, Bansilal S, et al. (18)Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography imaging of atherosclerotic plaque inflammation is highly reproducible: implications for atherosclerosis therapy trials. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;50(9):892–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
46. 46.
    Tahara N, Kai H, Ishibashi M, et al. Simvastatin Attenuates Plaque Inflammation: Evaluation by Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;48(9):1825–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
47. 47.
    Dunphy MP, Freiman A, Larson SM, Strauss HW. Association of vascular 18F-FDG uptake with vascular calcification. J Nucl Med. 2005;46:1278–84.PubMedGoogle Scholar
48. 48.
    Alexanderson E, Slomka P, Cheng V, et al. Fusion of positron emission tomography and coronary computed tomographic angiography identifies fluorine 18 fluorodeoxyglucose uptake in the left main coronary artery soft plaque. J Nucl Cardiol. 2008;15:841–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
49. 49.
    •• Rogers IS, Nasir K, Figueroa AL, et al. Feasibility of FDG imaging of the coronary arteries: comparison between acute coronary syndrome and stable angina. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2010;3(4):388–97. This research found that aortocoronary FDG uptake was higher in the subjects who presented with ACS, compared to subjects presenting with stable angina.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
50. 50.
    Achenbach S, Ropers D, Holle J, et al. In-plane coronary arterial motion velocity: measurement with electron-beam CT. Radiology. 2000;216:457–63.PubMedGoogle Scholar
51. 51.
    Lu B, Mao SS, Zhuang N, et al. Coronary artery motion during the cardiac cycle and optimal ECG triggering for coronary artery imaging. Invest Radiol. 2001;36:250–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
52. 52.
    Büther F, Dawood M, Stegger L, et al. List mode-driven cardiac and respiratory gating in PET. J Nucl Med. 2009;50(5):674–81.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
53. 53.
    Bing RJ, Fenton JC. Cardiac Metabolism. Annu Rev Med. 1965;16:1–2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
54. 54.
    Stanley WCLG, Hall JL, McCormack JG. Regulation of myocardial carbohydrate metabolism under normal and ischaemic conditions: potential for pharmacological interventions. Cardiovasc Res. 1997;33:243–57.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
55. 55.
    de Groot M, Meeuwis AP, Kok PJ, Corstens FH, Oyen WJ. Influence of blood glucose level, age and fasting period on non-pathological FDG uptake in heart and gut. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2005;32:98–101.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
56. 56.
    Shreve PD, Anzai Y, Wahl RL. Pitfalls in oncologic diagnosis with FDG PET imaging: physiologic and benign variants. Radiographics. 1999;19:61–77.PubMedGoogle Scholar
57. 57.
    • Williams G, Kolodny GM. Suppression of myocardial 18F-FDG uptake by preparing patients with a high-fat, low-carbohydrate diet. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008;190:W151–6. This research found significantly lower myocardial FDG uptake in subjects instructed to eat a VHFLCPP diet prior to FDG imaging.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
58. 58.
    Wykrzykowska J, Lehman S, Williams G, et al. Imaging of inflamed and vulnerable plaque in coronary arteries with 18F-FDG PET/CT in patients with suppression of myocardial uptake using a low-carbohydrate, high-fat preparation. J Nucl Med. 2009;50:563–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
59. 59.
    •• Rominger A, Saam T, Wolpers S, et al. 18F-FDG PET/CT identifies patients at risk for future vascular events in an otherwise asymptomatic cohort with neoplastic disease. J Nucl Med. 2009;50:1611–20. This research found that asymptomatic subjects with an elevated mean arterial FDG target-to-background ratio had a higher rate of subsequent vascular events.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar