Normal FDG Distribution Patterns in the Head and Neck: PET/CT Evaluation

PURPOSE: To retrospectively evaluate the distribution of fluorine 18 fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) in the head and neck region with combined positron emission tomography–computed tomography (PET/CT) in patients with no known abnormality in this region.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: The institutional review board allowed a retrospective review of PET/CT images obtained in 78 patients with non–head and neck cancer and waived the requirement for informed consent. The accumulation of FDG in 11 normal head and neck structures was visually and quantitatively assessed retrospectively. Positive rate percentage (PRP) was defined as the sum of the percentages of patients with grade 2 and grade 3 tracer uptake intensity. Standardized uptake values (SUVs) were calculated for quantitative analysis. Mean SUVs were compared between the male and female patients by using the unpaired t test, and the correlation between FDG uptake and patient age was assessed by using the Pearson correlation coefficient test.

RESULTS: Intense tracer uptake was usually seen in the palatine tonsils (PRP, 98%; mean SUV, 3.48), soft palate (PRP, 96%; mean SUV, 3.13), and lingual tonsils (PRP, 96%; mean SUV, 3.11). In the inferior concha (PRP, 4%; mean SUV, 1.56), thyroid gland (PRP, 3%; mean SUV, 1.31), and tongue (PRP, 1%; mean SUV, 1.39), uptake was typically minimal. FDG accumulation was variable in the sublingual glands (PRP, 72%; mean SUV, 2.93), spinal cord (PRP, 64%; mean SUV, 2.12), submandibular glands (PRP, 53%; mean SUV, 2.11), parotid glands (PRP, 51%; mean SUV, 1.90), and vocal cords (PRP, 19%; mean SUV, 1.77). The mean normal-tissue SUV in the soft palate was higher in male than in female patients (P < .01). A negative correlation between age and physiologic FDG uptake was seen in the palatine tonsils (r = −0.51, P < .001) and sublingual glands (r = −0.70, P < .001).

CONCLUSION: Intense FDG uptake was usually observed in the palatine tonsils, lingual tonsils, and soft palate, whereas uptake in the major salivary glands was variable.

© RSNA, 2005

References

  • 1 Bar-Shalom R, Valdivia AY, Blaufox MD. PET imaging in oncology. Semin Nucl Med 2000; 30:150-185. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Bomanji JB, Costa DC, Ell PJ. Clinical role of positron emission tomography in oncology. Lancet Oncol 2001; 2:157-164. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Hustinx R, Benard F, Alavi A. Whole-body FDG-PET imaging in the management of patients with cancer. Semin Nucl Med 2002; 32:35-46. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Adams S, Baum RP, Stuckensen T, Bitter K, Hor G. Prospective comparison of 18F-FDG PET with conventional imaging modalities (CT, MRI, US) in lymph node staging of head and neck cancer. Eur J Nucl Med 1998; 25:1255-1260. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Kitagawa Y, Sadato N, Azuma H, et al. FDG PET to evaluate combined intra-arterial chemotherapy and radiotherapy of head and neck neoplasms. J Nucl Med 1999; 40:1132-1137. MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Lowe VJ, Boyd JH, Dunphy FR, et al. Surveillance for recurrent head and neck cancer using positron emission tomography. J Clin Oncol 2000; 18:651-658. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Halfpenny W, Hain SF, Biassoni L, Maisey MN, Sherman JA, McGurk M. FDG-PET: a possible prognostic factor in head and neck cancer. Br J Cancer 2002; 86:512-516. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Jabour BA, Choi Y, Hoh CK, et al. Extracranial head and neck: PET imaging with 2-[F-18]fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose and MR imaging correlation. Radiology 1993; 186:27-35. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Wong WL, Hussain K, Chevretton E, et al. Validation and clinical application of computer-combined computed tomography and positron emission tomography with 2-[18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose head and neck images. Am J Surg 1996; 172:628- 632. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Uematsu H, Sadato N, Yonekura Y, et al. Coregistration of FDG PET and MRI of the head and neck using normal distribution of FDG. J Nucl Med 1998; 39:2121-2127. MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Kawabe J, Okamura T, Shakudo M, et al. Physiological FDG uptake in the palatine tonsils. Ann Nucl Med 2001; 15:297-300. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Goerres GW, Hany TF, Kamel E, von Schulthess GK, Buck A. Head and neck imaging with PET and PET/CT: artefacts from dental metallic implants. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2002; 29:367-370. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Beyer T, Townsend DW, Brun T, et al. A combined PET/CT scanner for clinical oncology. J Nucl Med 2000; 41:1369-1379. MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Kluetz PG, Meltzer CC, Villemagne VL, et al. Combined PET/CT imaging in oncology: impact on patient management. Clin Positron Imaging 2000; 3:223-230. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Kaim AH, Burger C, Ganter CC, et al. PET-CT–guided percutaneous puncture of an infected cyst in autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease: case report. Radiology 2001; 221:818-821. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Hamacher K, Coenen HH, Stocklin G. Efficient stereospecific synthesis of no-carrier-added 2-[18F]-fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose using aminopolyether supported nucleophilic substitution. J Nucl Med 1986; 27:235-238. MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Wahl RL, Quint LE, Cieslak RD, Aisen AM, Koeppe RA, Meyer CR. “Anatometabolic” tumor imaging: fusion of FDG PET with CT or MRI to localize foci of increased activity. J Nucl Med 1993; 34:1190-1197. MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Yasuda S, Shohtsu A, Ide M, et al. Chronic thyroiditis: diffuse uptake of FDG at PET. Radiology 1998; 207:775-778. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Sumi M, Izumi M, Yonetsu K, Nakamura T. The MR imaging assessment of submandibular gland sialoadenitis secondary to sialolithiasis: correlation with CT and histopathologic findings. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1999; 20:1737-1743. MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Nakamoto Y, Osman M, Cohade C, et al. PET/CT: comparison of quantitative tracer uptake between germanium and CT transmission attenuation correction maps. J Nucl Med 2002; 43:1137-1143. MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Visvikis D, Cheze-LeRest C, Costa DC, Bomanji J, Gacinovic S, Ell PJ. Influence of ordered-subset expectation maximization and segmented attenuation correction in the calculation of standardised uptake values for [18F]FDG PET. Eur J Nucl Med 2001; 28:1326-1335. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

Article History

Published in print: Mar 2005