Imaging of Pelvic Malignancies with In-Line FDG PET–CT: Case Examples and Common Pitfalls of FDG PET

References

• 1 CohadeC, Osman M, Nakamoto Y, et al. Initial experience with oral contrast in PET/CT: phantom and clinical studies. J Nucl Med2003; 44: 412–416.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 2 GoerresGW, Ziegler SI, Burger C, Berthold T, Von Schulthess GK, Buck A. Artifacts at PET and PET/CT caused by metallic hip prosthetic material. Radiology2003; 226:577–584.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 3 ShrevePD, Anzai Y, Wahl RL. Pitfalls in oncologic diagnosis with FDG-PET imaging: physiologic and benign variants. RadioGraphics1999; 19:61–77.
  Google Scholar
• 4 CohadeC, Osman M, Pannu HK, Wahl RL. Uptake in supraclavicular area fat (“USA-Fat”): description on 18F-FDG PET/CT. J Nucl Med2003; 44:170–176.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 5 ChanderS, Meltzer CC, McCook BM. Physiologic uterine uptake of FDG during menstruation demonstrated with serial combined positron emission tomography and computed tomography. Clin Nucl Med2002; 27:22–24.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 6 NakamotoY, Tatsumi M, Hammoud D, Cohade C, Osman MM, Wahl RL. Normal FDG distribution patterns in the head and neck: PET/CT evaluation. Radiology2005; 234:879–885.
  Google Scholar
• 7 VitolaJ, Delbeke D. Positron emission tomography for evaluation of colorectal carcinoma. Semin Roentgenol2002; 37:118–128.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 8 KosudaS, Kison PV, Greenough R, Grossman HB, Wahl RL. Preliminary assessment of fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in patients with bladder cancer. Eur J Nucl Med1997; 24:615–620.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 9 ShrevePD, Grossman HB, Gross MD, Wahl RL. Metastatic prostate cancer: initial findings of PET with 2-deoxy-2-[F-18]fluoro-d-glucose. Radiology1996; 199:751–756.
  Google Scholar
• 10 WahlRL. Why nearly all PET of abdominal and pelvic cancers will be performed as PET/CT. J Nucl Med2004; 45(suppl 1):82S–95S.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 11 HuebnerRH, Park KC, Shepherd JE, et al. A meta-analysis of the literature for whole-body FDG PET detection of recurrent colorectal cancer. J Nucl Med2000; 41:1177–1189.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 12 SchiepersC, Penninckx F, De Vadder N, et al. Contribution of PET in the diagnosis of recurrent colorectal cancer: comparison with conventional imaging. Eur J Surg Oncol1995; 21:517–522.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 13 CohadeC, Osman M, Leal J, Wahl RL. Direct comparison of (18)F-FDG PET and PET/CT in patients with colorectal carcinoma. J Nucl Med2003; 44:1797–1803.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 14 WongTZ, Jones EL, Coleman RE. Positron emission tomography with 2-deoxy-2-[(18)F]fluoro-d-glucose for evaluating local and distant disease in patients with cervical cancer. Mol Imaging Biol2004; 6:55–62.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 15 RyuSY, Kim MH, Choi SC, Choi CW, Lee KH. Detection of early recurrence with 18F-FDG PET in patients with cervical cancer. J Nucl Med2003; 44:347–352.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 16 GrigsbyPW, Siegel BA, Dehdashti F, Rader J, Zoberi I. Posttherapy [18F] fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in carcinoma of the cervix: response and outcome. J Clin Oncol2004; 22:2167–2171.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 17 LinWC, Hung YC, Yeh LS, Kao CH, Yen RF, Shen YY. Usefulness of (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography to detect para-aortic lymph nodal metastasis in advanced cervical cancer with negative computed tomography findings. Gynecol Oncol2003; 89:73–76.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 18 YehLS, Hung YC, Shen YY, Kao CH, Lin CC, Lee CC. Detecting para-aortic lymph nodal metastasis by positron emission tomography of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose in advanced cervical cancer with negative magnetic resonance imaging findings. Oncol Rep2002; 9:1289–1292.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 19 BelhocineT, De Barsy C, Hustinx R, Willems-Foidart J. Usefulness of (18)F-FDG PET in the post-therapy surveillance of endometrial carcinoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging2002; 29: 1132–1139.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 20 SagaT, Higashi T, Ishimori T, et al. Clinical value of FDG-PET in the follow up of post-operative patients with endometrial cancer. Ann Nucl Med2003; 17:197–203.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 21 Garcia VellosoMJ, Boan Garcia JF, Villar Luque LM, Aramendia Beitia JM, Lopez Garcia G, Richter Echeverria JA. F-18-FDG positron emission tomography in the diagnosis of ovarian recurrence: comparison with CT scan and CA 125. Rev Esp Med Nucl2003; 22:217–223.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 22 ChoSM, Ha HK, Byun JY, et al. Usefulness of FDG PET for assessment of early recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol2002; 179:391–395.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 23 BristowRE, del Carmen MG, Pannu HK, et al. Clinically occult recurrent ovarian cancer: patient selection for secondary cytoreductive surgery using combined PET/CT. Gynecol Oncol2003; 90: 519–528.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 24 PannuHK, Bristow RE, Cohade C, Fishman EK, Wahl RL. PET-CT in recurrent ovarian cancer: initial observations. RadioGraphics2004; 24:209–223.
  Google Scholar
• 25 DrieskensO, Stroobants S, Gysen M, Vandenbosch G, Mortelmans L, Vergote I. Positron emission tomography with FDG in the detection of peritoneal and retroperitoneal metastases of ovarian cancer. Gynecol Obstet Invest2003; 55:130–134.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 26 YoshidaY, Kurokawa T, Kawahara K, et al. Incremental benefits of FDG positron emission tomography over CT alone for the preoperative staging of ovarian cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol2004; 182:227–233.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 27 TurlakowA, Yeung HW, Salmon AS, Macapinlac HA, Larson SM. Peritoneal carcinomatosis: role of (18)F-FDG PET. J Nucl Med2003; 44:1407–1412.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 28 SchiepersC, Filmont JE, Czernin J. PET for staging of Hodgkin’s disease and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging2003; 30(suppl 1):S82–S88.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 29 BarringtonSF, O’Doherty MJ. Limitations of PET for imaging lymphoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging2003; 30(suppl 1):S117–S127.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 30 SchoderH, Larson SM, Yeung HW. PET/CT in oncology: integration into clinical management of lymphoma, melanoma, and gastrointestinal malignancies. J Nucl Med2004; 45(suppl 1):72S–81S.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 31 StraussLG. Fluorine-18 deoxyglucose and false-positive results: a major problem in the diagnostics of oncologic patients. Eur J Nucl Med1996; 23: 1409–1415.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 32 LermanH, Metser U, Grisaru D, Fishman A, Lievshitz G, Even-Sapir E. Normal and abnormal 18F-FDG endometrial and ovarian uptake in pre-and postmenopausal patients: assessment by PET/CT. J Nucl Med2004; 45:266–271.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 33 NakamotoY, Eisbruch A, Achtyes ED, et al. Prognostic value of positron emission tomography using F-18-fluorodeoxyglucose in patients with cervical cancer undergoing radiotherapy. Gynecol Oncol2002; 84:289–295.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 34 BhargavaP, Zhuang H, Kumar R, Charron M, Alavi A. Iatrogenic artifacts on whole-body F-18 FDG PET imaging. Clin Nucl Med2004; 29: 429–439.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 35 FayadL, Cohade C, Wahl RL, Fishman EK. Sacral fractures: a potential pitfall of FDG positron emission tomography. AJR Am J Roentgenol2003; 181:1239–1243.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 36 VesselleHJ, Miraldi FD. FDG PET of the retro-peritoneum: normal anatomy, variants, pathologic conditions, and strategies to avoid diagnostic pitfalls. RadioGraphics1998; 18:805–823.
  Google Scholar
• 37 NakamotoY, Chin BB, Cohade C, Osman M, Tatsumi M, Wahl RL. PET/CT: artifacts caused by bowel motion. Nucl Med Commun2004; 25: 221–225.
  Medline Google Scholar