ABSTRACT
Positron emission tomography (PET) is a tomographic imaging method that shows three-dimensional distribution of radiopharmaceuticals which are labelled with positron emitter radionuclides. Today most widely used PET radiopharmaceutical F-18 flourodeoxyglucose is an F-18 labelled glucose analogue, and it is trapped by membrane glucose transporters to viable cells. F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) uptake is proportional to glucose consumption of the tissue. In several type of cancers, increased glucose consumption is seen due to increased GLUT expression and hexokinase activity. F-18 FDG PET is a proved sensitive method in the diagnosis, staging, restaging and treatment response evaluation for several oncological disease. This practice guideline aims to help nuclear medicine physicians, physicists and technicians as persons who apply, evaluate and report F-18 FDG PET/CT by providing general information of F-18 FDG PET/CT. Additionally it is focused to provide standardization of quality of diagnostic imaging and harmonization of obtained quantitative information.
References
1El-Haj N, Etchebehere E, Fanti S, et al editors. IAEA Human Health Series. No:26. Printed by the IAEA, International Atomic Energy Agency Vienna, 2013. July 2013;p:3-4. Available from: https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/Pub1616_web.pdf.
2Avril NE, Weber WA. Monitoring response to treatment in patients utilizing PET. Radiol Clin North Am 2005;43:189-204.
3Bastiaannet E, Groen H, Jager PL, et al. The value of FDG-PET in the detection, grading and response to therapy of soft tissue and bone sarcomas; a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancer Treat Rev 2004;30:83-101.
4Borst GR, Belderbos JSA, Boellaard R, et al. Standardised FDG uptake: a prognostic factor for inoperable non-small cell lung can- cer. Eur J Cancer 2005;41:1533-1541.
5Erdi YE. The use of PET for radiotherapy. Curr Med Imaging Rev 2007;3:3-16.
6Geus-Oei LF, van der Heijden HF, Corstens FH, Oyen WJ. Predictive and prognostic value of FDG-PET in nonsmall-cell lung cancer: a systematic review. Cancer 2007;110:1654-1664.
7Hoekstra CJ, Stroobants SG, Smit EF, et al. Prognostic relevance of response evaluation using [F-18]-2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography in patients with locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:8362-8370.
8Larson SM, Schwartz LH. 18F-FDG PET as a candidate for “qual- ified biomarker”: functional assessment of treatment response in oncology. J Nucl Med 2006;47:901-903.
9Vansteenkiste JF, Stroobants SG. The role of positron emission tomography with 18F-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose in respiratory on- cology. Eur Respir J 2001;17:802-820.
10Weber WA. Use of PET for monitoring cancer therapy and for predicting outcome. J Nucl Med 2005;46:983-995.
11Fletcher JW, Djulbegovic B, Soares HP, et al. Recommendations on the use of F-18-FDG PET in oncology. J Nucl Med 2008;49:480-508.
12Delgado-Bolton RC, Fernández-Pérez C, González-Maté A, Carreras JL. Meta-analysis of the performance of 18F-FDG PET in primary tumor detection in unknown primary tumors. J Nucl Med 2003;44:1301-1314.
13Delgado-Bolton RC, Carreras JL, Pérez-Castejón MJ. A systematic review of the efficacy of F-18-FDG PET in unknown primary tumors. Curr Med Imaging Rev. 2006;2:215-225.
14Jiménez-Requena F, Delgado-Bolton RC, Fernández-Pérez C, et al. Meta-analysis of the performance of (18)F-FDG PET in cutaneous melanoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2010;37:284-300.
15Grégoire V, Chiti A. PET in radiotherapy planning: particularly exquisite test or pending and experimental tool? Radiother Oncol 2010;96:275-276.
16Thorwarth D, Beyer T, Boellaard R, et al. Integration of FDG-PET/ CT into external beam radiation therapy planning: technical aspects and recommendations on methodological approaches. Nuklearmedizin 2012;51:140-153.
17Boellaard R, O’Doherty MJ, Weber WA, et al. FDG PET and PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour PET imaging: version 1.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2010;37:181-200.
18Delbeke D, Coleman RE, Guiberteau MJ, et al. Procedure guideline for tumor imaging with 18F-FDG PET/CT 1.0. J Nucl Med 2006;47:885-895.
19Busemann SE, Plachcinska A, Britten A. Acceptance testing for nuclear medicine instrumentation. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2010;37:672-681.
20Ronald Boellaard, Roberto Delgado-Bolton,Wim J. G. Oyen, et al. PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour imaging: version 2.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2015; 42:328-354.
21ACR Guidelines and Standards Committee. ACR-SPR practice parameter for performing FDG-PET/CT in oncology. American College of Radiology; 2014. Last Accessed Date: 23.11.2014. Avaialable from: http://www.acr.org/~/media/ 71B746780F934F6D8A1BA5CCA5167EDB.pdf. Accessed 23Nov 2014.
22ICRP. Radiation dose to patients from radiopharmaceuticals. Addendum 3 to ICRP Publication 53. ICRP Publication 106. Approved by the Commission in October 2007. Ann ICRP 2008;38:1-197.
23Belohlavek O, Jaruskova M. [18F]FDG-PET scan in patients with fasting hyperglycaemia. Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2016;60:404-412.
24Dai KS, Tai DY, Ho P, et al. Accuracy of the EasyTouch blood glucose self-monitoring system: a study of 516 cases. Clin Chim Acta 2004;349:135-141.
25Quantitative Imaging Biomarkers Alliance. Quantitative FDG-PET Technical Committee. UPICT oncology FDG-PET CT protocol. Last Accessed Date: 23.11.2014. Available from: http://qibawiki.rsna.org/index.php?title=FDG-PET_tech_ctte.
26Huang SC. Anatomy of SUV. Standardized uptake value. Nucl Med Biol 2000;27:643-646.
27Caobelli F, Pizzocaro C, Paghera B, Guerra UP. Proposal for an optimized protocol for intravenous administration of insulin in diabetic patients undergoing (18) F-FDG PET/CT. Nucl Med Commun 2013;34:271-275.
28Rakheja R, Ciarallo A, Alabed YZ, Hickeson M. Intravenous ad- ministration of diazepam significantly reduces brown fat activity on 18F-FDG PET/CT. Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2011;1:29-35
29Soderlund 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;34:1018-1022.
30Sturkenboom MG, Hoekstra OS, Postema EJ, Zijlstra JM, Berkhof J, Franssen EJ. A randomised controlled trial assessing the effect of oral diazepam on 18F-FDG uptake in the neck and upper chest region. Mol Imaging Biol 2009;11:364-368.
31Coulden R, Chung P, Sonnex E, Ibrahim Q, Maguire C, Abele J. Suppression of myocardial 18F-FDG uptake with a preparatory “Atkins-style” low-carbohydrate diet. Eur Radiology 2012;22:2221-2228.
32Lum DP, Wandell S, Ko J, Coel MN. Reduction of myocardial 2- deoxy-2-[18F]fluoro-D-glucose uptake artifacts in positron emis- sion tomography using dietary carbohydrate restriction. Mol Imaging Biol 2002;4:232-237.
33Bui KL, Horner JD, Herts BR, Einstein DM. Intravenous iodinated contrast agents: risks and problematic situations. Cleve Clin J Med 2007;74:361-364, 367.
34ACR Committee on Drugs and Contrast Media. ACR manual on contrast media, version 9. ACR, American College of Radiology; 2013. ISBN: 978-1-55903-012-0. Last Accessed Date: 23.11.2014. Available from: http://www.acr.org/quality-safety/ resources/~/media/37D84428BF1D4E1B9A3A2918DA9E27A3.pdf.
35University of California San Francisco. Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging. Contrast administration in patients receiving metformin. Last Accessed Date: 23.11.2014. Available from: http://www.radiology.ucsf. edu/patient-care/patient-safety/contrast/iodinated/metaformin.
36European Society of Urogenital Radiology. ESUR guidelines on contrast media. Last Accessed Date: 23.11.2014. Available from: http://www.esur.org/guidelines.
37Antoch G, Kuehl H, Kanja J, et al. Dual-modality PET/CT scanning with negative oral contrast agent to avoid artifacts: introduction and evaluation. Radiology 2004;230:879-885.
38de Groot EH, Post N, Boellaard R, Wagenaar NR, Willemsen AT, van Dalen JA. Optimized dose regimen for whole-body FDG-PET imaging. EJNMMI Res 2013;3:63.
39Boellaard R, Willemsen AT, Arends B, Visser EP. EARL procedure for assessing PET/CT system specific patient FDG activity preparations for quantitative FDG PET/CT studies. Last Accessed Date: 23.11.2014. Avaliable from: http://earl.eanm.org/html/img/pool/ EARL-procedure-for-optimizing-FDG-activity-for-quantitative-FDG- PET-studies_version_1_1.pdf.
40Boellaard R, Krak NC, Hoekstra OS, Lammertsma AA. Effects of noise, image resolution, and ROI definition on the accuracy of standard uptake values: a simulation study. J Nucl Med 2004;45:1519-1527.
41Boellaard R, Oyen WJ, Hoekstra CJ, et al. The Netherlands protocol for standardisation and quantification of FDG whole body PET studies in multi-centre trials. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2008;35:2320-2333.
42Masuda Y, Kondo C, Matsuo Y, Uetani M, Kusakabe K. Comparison of imaging protocols for 18F-FDG PET/CT in over- weight patients: optimizing scan duration versus administered dose. J Nucl Med 2009;50:844-848.
43Quantitative Imaging Biomarkers Alliance. Quantitative FDG-PET Technical Committee. UPICT oncology FDG-PET CT protocol. Last Accessed Date: 23. 11.2014. Available from: http://qibawiki.rsna.org/index.php?title=FDG-PET_tech_ctte
44Osman MM, Chaar BT, Muzaffar R, et al. 18F-FDG PET/CT of patients with cancer: comparison of whole-body and limited whole- body technique. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010;195:1397-1403.
45Mawlawi O, Erasmus JJ, Munden RF, et al. Quantifying the effect of IV contrastmedia on integrated PET/CT: clinical evaluation. AJRAm J Roentgenol 2006;186:308-319.
46Antoch G, Kuehl H, Kanja J, et al. Dual-modality PET/CTscanning with negative oral contrast agent to avoid artifacts: introduction andevaluation. Radiology 2004;230:879-885.
47Otsuka H, Graham MM, Kubo A, Nishitani H. The effect of oral contrast on large bowel activity in FDG-PET/CT. Ann Nucl Med 2005;19:101-108.
48Wahl RL, Jacene H, Kasamon Y, Lodge MA. From RECIST to PERCIST: evolving considerations for PET response criteria insolid tumors. J Nucl Med 2009;50(Suppl 1):122S-150S.
49Janmahasatian S, Duffull SB, Ash S, Ward LC, Byrne NM, Green B. Quantification of lean bodyweight. Clin Pharmacokinet 2005;44:1051-1065.
50Itti E, Meignan M, Berriolo-Riedinger A, et al. An international confirmatory study of the prognostic value of early PET/CT in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: comparison between Deauville criteria and DeltaSUVmax. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2013;40:1312-1320.
51Chung HH, Kwon HW, Kang KW, et al. Prognostic value of preoperative metabolic tumor volume and total lesion glycolysis in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 2012;19:1966-1972.
52The Royal College of Radiologists. Standards for radiology discrepancy meetings. London: The Royal College of Radiologists; 2007. Last Accessed Date: 23.11.2014. Available from: http://www.rcr.ac.uk/docs/radiology/pdf/Stand_radiol_discrepancy.pdf.
53Andrade RS, Heron DE, Degirmenci B, et al. Posttreatment assessment of response using FDG-PET/CT for patients treated with definitive radiation therapy for head and neck cancers. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2006;65:1315-1322.
54Kawabe J, Higashiyama S, Yoshida A, Kotani K, Shiomi S. The role of FDG PET-CT in the therapeutic evaluation for HNSCC patients. Jpn J Radiol 2012;30:463-470.
55Barrington SF, Mikhaeel NG, Kostakoglu L, et al. Role of imaging in the staging and response assessment of lymphoma: consensus of the International Conference on Malignant Lymphomas Imaging Working Group. J Clin Oncol 2014;20:3048-3058. doi:10.1200/JCO.2013.53.5229
