Functional Imaging

  • Muhammad A. Chaudhry
  • Lujaien Al-Rubaiey Kadhim
  • Richard L. Wahl
Chapter
First Online:
Part of the Medical Radiology book series (MEDRAD)

Abstract

Positron Emission Tomography (PET) has been in clinical practice since early 1990s; however, widespread use was hampered due to non-availability of anatomical reference. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, with the advent of hybrid imaging, PET/computed tomography (CT), the oncological utilization has increased significantly. PET/CT has been shown to have high sensitivity and negative predictive value for the detection of tumors, with many studies reporting superior utility of PET/CT over conventional anatomical imaging such as CT, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and ultrasound. Despite limited literature regarding utilization of PET/CT in gall bladder and biliary tract cancer, the available literature studies provide evidence for the potential advantage of PET/CT in staging, restaging, and detecting recurrence of gallbladder and biliary tract cancer.

Keywords

Positron Emission Tomography Standardize Uptake Value Gallbladder Cancer Biliary Tract Cancer Positron Emission Tomography Radiotracer 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. 1.
    Bailey D, Townsend PE, Valk MN (2005) Positron emission tomography: basic sciences 2005. Springer, SecaucusCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wood K, Hoskin PJ, Saunders MI (2007) Positron emission tomography in oncology: a review. Clin Oncol 19:237–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Beuthien-Baumann B, Hamacher K, Oberdorfer F et al (2000) Preparation of fluorine-18 labelled sugars and derivatives and their application as tracer for positron-emission-tomography. Carbohydr Res 327(1–2):107–118PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Warburg O, Wind F, Negelein E (1927) The metabolism of tumors in the body. J Gen Physiol 8(6):519–530PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kumar R, Halanaik D, Malhotra A (2010) Clinical applications of positron emission tomography-computed tomography in oncology. Indian J Cancer 47:100–119PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Anderson H, Price P (2000) What does positron emission tomography offer oncology? Eur J Cancer 36:2028–2035PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lucignani G, Paganelli G, Bombardieri E (2004) The use of standardized uptake values for assessing FDG uptake with PET in oncology: a clinical perspective. Nucl Med Commun 25:651–656PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wahl R, Jacene H, Kasamon Y et al (2009) From RECIST to PERCIST: evolving considerations for PET response criteria in solid tumors. J Nucl Med 50(Suppl 1):122S–150SPubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Vriens D, Visser EP, Geus-Oei LF et al (2010) Methodological considerations in quantification of oncological FDG PET studies. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 37(7):1408–1425PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lee S, Kim HJ, Park JH (2010) Clinical usefulness of 18F-FDG PET-CT for patients with gallbladder cancer and cholangiocarcinoma. J Gastroenterol 45:560–566PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rodrigues-Fernandez A, Gomez-Rio M, Llamas-Elvira JM et al (2004) Positron-emission tomography with fluorine-18F-FDG for gallbladder cancer diagnosis. Am J Surg 188:171–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Petrowsky H, Wildbrett P, Husarik DB et al (2006) Impact of integrated positron emission tomography and computed tomography on staging and management of gallbladder cancer and cholangiocarcinoma. J Hepatol 45:43–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Yamada I, Ajiki T, Ueno K et al (2012) Feasibility of 18F-FDG PET for preoperative evaluation of biliary tract cancer. Anticancer Res 32(11):5105–5110PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Shukla P, Barreto SG, Arya S et al (2008) Does PET-CT scan have a role prior to radical re-resection for incidental gallbladder cancer? HPB 10:439–445PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Breitenstein S, Aperstegui C, Clavien PA (2008) Positron emission tomography (PET) for cholangiocarcinoma. HPB 10:120–121PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Alkhawaldeh K, Faltten S, Biersack HJ et al (2011) The value of F-18 FDG PET in patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis and cholangiocarcinoma using visual and semiquantitative analysis. Clin Nucl Med 36(10):879–883PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Corvera C, Blumgart LH, Akhurst T et al (2008) 18F-FDG PET influences management decisions in patients with biliary cancer. J Am Coll Surg 206:57–65PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kim J, Kim MH, Lee TY et al (2008) Clinical role of 18F-FDG PET-CT in suspected and potentially operable cholangiocarcinoma: a prospective study compared with conventional imaging. Am J Gastroenterol 103:1145–1151PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Li J, Kuehl H, Grabellus F et al (2008) Preoperative assessment of hilar cholangiocarcinoma by dual-modality PET/CT. J Surg Oncol 98:438–443PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ruys A, Bennink RJ, van Westreenen HL et al (2011) FDG-positron emission tomography/computed tomography and standardized uptake value in the primary diagnosis and staging of hilar cholangiocarcinoma. HPB 134:256–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kobayashi S, Nagano H, Hoshino H et al (2011) Diagnostic value of FDG-PET for lymph node metastasis and outcome of surgery for biliary cancer. J Surg Oncol 103(3):223–229PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cameron K, Golan S, Simpson W et al (2011) Recurrent pancreatic carcinoma and cholangiocarcinoma: 18F-FDG PET/CT. Abdom Imaging 36(4):463–471PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kitajima K, Murakami K, Kanagae K (2009) Clinical impact of whole body FDG-PET for recurrent biliary cancer: a multicenter study. Ann Nucl Med 23:709–715PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kumar R, Sharma P, Kumari A et al (2012) Role of 18F-FDG PET/CT in detecting recurrent gallbladder carcinoma. Clin Nucl Med 37(5):431–435PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jadvar H, Henderson RW, Conti PS (2007) 18F-FDG PET and PET:CT in recurrent and metastatic cholangiocarcinoma. J Comput Assist Tomogr 31(2):223–228PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lee Y, Han SW, Oh DY et al (2011) Diagnostic performance of contrast enhanced CT and 18F-FDG PET/CT in suspicious recurrence of biliary tract cancer after curative resection. BMC 11(1):188–195Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Smith G, Carroll L, Aboagye EO (2012) New frontiers in the design and synthesis of imaging probes for PET oncology: current challenges and future directions. Mol Imaging Biol 14(6):653–666PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Yankeelov T, Pererson TE, Abramson RG et al (2012) Simultaneous PET-MRI in oncology: a solution looking for a problem? Magn Reson Imaging 30:1342–1356PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Muhammad A. Chaudhry
    • 1
    • 3
  • Lujaien Al-Rubaiey Kadhim
    • 2
  • Richard L. Wahl
    • 3
  1. 1.School of Medicine and Medical Director, Tawam Molecular Imaging CentreJohns Hopkins UniversityAl-AinUnited Arab Emirates
  2. 2.Research ConsultantTawam Molecular Imaging CentreAl-AinUnited Arab Emirates
  3. 3.Division of Radiology, School of MedicineJohns Hopkins UniversityBaltimoreUSA

Personalised recommendations