An Introduction to PET-CT Imaging

Published Online:https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.242025724

Cancer is one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality in developed countries such as the United States. Complex clinical decisions about treatment of oncologic patients are largely guided by imaging findings, among other factors. Most radiologic procedures map the anatomy and morphology of tumors with little or no information about their metabolism. Positron emission tomography (PET) performed with 2-[fluorine-18]fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose (FDG) has proved valuable in providing important tumor-related qualitative and quantitative metabolic information that is critical to diagnosis and follow-up. PET–computed tomography (CT) is a unique combination of the cross-sectional anatomic information provided by CT and the metabolic information provided by PET, which are acquired during a single examination and fused. FDG PET–CT offers several advantages over PET alone; the most important is the ability to accurately localize increased FDG activity to specific normal or abnormal anatomic locations, which may be difficult or even impossible with PET alone. Understanding the principles of FDG PET–CT and the optimal scanning techniques and recognizing the potential pitfalls and limitations are important for advantageous use of this imaging modality.

© RSNA, 2004

References

  • 1 Gupta NC, Frank AR, Dewan NA, et al. Solitary pulmonary nodules: detection of malignancy with PET with 2-[F-18]-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose. Radiology 1992; 184:441-444.
  • 2 Vesselle H, Schmidt RA, Pugsley JM, et al. Lung cancer proliferation correlates with [F-18]fluorodeoxyglucose uptake by positron emission tomography. Clin Cancer Res 2000; 6:3837-3844.
  • 3 Hoh CK, Glaspy J, Rosen P, et al. Whole-body FDG-PET imaging for staging of Hodgkin’s disease and lymphoma. J Nucl Med 1997; 38:343-348.
  • 4 Tse N, Hoh C, Hawkins R, et al. The application of positron emission tomography imaging with fluorodeoxyglucose to the evaluation of breast disease. Ann Surg 1992; 216:27-34.
  • 5 Adler LP, Crowe JP, al-Kaisi NK, Sunshine JL. Evaluation of breast masses and axillary lymph nodes with [F-18]2-deoxy-2-fluoro-D-glucose PET. Radiology 1993; 187:743-750.
  • 6 Strauss LG, Clorius JH, Schlag P, et al. Recurrence of colorectal tumors: PET evaluation. Radiology 1989; 170:329-332.
  • 7 Miraldi F, Vesselle H, Faulhaber PF, Adler LP, Leisure GP. Elimination of artifactual accumulation of FDG in PET imaging of colorectal cancer. Clin Nucl Med 1998; 23:3-7.
  • 8 Eubank WB, Mankoff DA, Schmiedl UP, et al. Imaging of oncologic patients: benefits of combined CT and FDG PET in the diagnosis of malignancy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1998; 171:1103-1110.
  • 9 Wahl RL, Quint LE, Cieslak RD, et al. Anatometabolic tumor imaging: fusion of FDG PET with CT or MRI to localize foci of increased activity. J Nucl Med 1993; 34:1190-1197.
  • 10 Pietrzyk U, Herholz K, Heiss WD. Three-dimensional alignment of functional and morphological tomograms. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1990; 14:51-59.
  • 11 Beyer T, Townsend DW, Brun T, et al. A combined PET/CT scanner for clinical oncology. J Nucl Med 2000; 41:1369-1379.
  • 12 Padgett HC, Schmidt DG, Luxen A, et al. Computer-controlled radiochemical synthesis: a chemistry process control unit for the automated production of radiochemicals. Int J Rad Appl Instrum [A] 1989; 40:433-445.
  • 13 Cotran RS, Kumar V, Collins T. Neoplasia. In: Cotran RS, Kumar V, Collins T, eds. Robbins pathologic basis of disease. Philadelphia, Pa: Saunders, 1999; 260-327.
  • 14 Smith TA. FDG uptake, tumor characteristics and response to therapy: a review. Nucl Med Commun 1998; 19:97-105.
  • 15 Thompson CJ. Instrumentation. In: Burk ED, eds. Principles and practice of PET. Philadelphia, Pa: Lippincott, 2002; 48-63.
  • 16 Casey ME, Nutt R. A multicrystal two dimensional BGO detector system for positron emission tomography. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 1986; 33:460-463.
  • 17 Beyer T, Watson CC, Meltzer CC, Townsend DW, Nutt R. The Biograph: a premium dual-modality PET/CT tomograph for clinical oncology. Electromedica 2001; 69:120-126.
  • 18 Vesselle HJ, Miraldi FD. FDG PET of the retroperitoneum: normal anatomy, variants, pathologic conditions, and strategies to avoid diagnostic pitfalls. RadioGraphics 1998; 18:805-823.
  • 19 Hamberg LM, Hunter GJ, Alpert NM, Choi NC, Babich JW, Fischman AJ. The dose uptake ratio as an index of glucose metabolism: useful parameter or oversimplification? J Nucl Med 1994; 35:1308-1312.
  • 20 Kostakoglu L, Agress H, Goldsmith SJ. Clinical role of FDG PET in evaluation of cancer patients. RadioGraphics 2003; 23:315-340.
  • 21 Let’s play PET CD-ROM Los Angeles, Calif: Crump Institute for Molecular Imaging, University of California, Los Angeles, School of Medicine, 1994–2003.

Article History

Published in print: Mar 2004