Imaging Atherosclerosis in the Carotid Arteries with F-18-Fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose Positron Emission Tomography: Effect of Imaging Time after Injection on Quantitative Measurement

Purpose To compare F-18-fluoro-2-deoxy- D -glucose (F-18 FDG) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) imaging at two different circulation times after injection of F-18 FDG in order to measure atherosclerosis in carotid arteries. Methods We assessed 12 patients with recent symptoma...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Nuclear medicine and molecular imaging 2010, 44(4), , pp.261-266
Hauptverfasser: Oh, Minyoung, Kim, Ji Young, Shin, Kwang-Ho, Park, Seol Hoon, Ryu, Jin-Sook, Kim, Jae Seung, Kim, Hye-Jin, Kang, Dong-Wha, Moon, Dae Hyuk
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Purpose To compare F-18-fluoro-2-deoxy- D -glucose (F-18 FDG) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) imaging at two different circulation times after injection of F-18 FDG in order to measure atherosclerosis in carotid arteries. Methods We assessed 12 patients with recent symptomatic plaques in the carotid arteries. F-18 FDG PET/CT carotid plaque imaging was performed for 20 min at 2 h after F-18 FDG injection in five patients and at 3 h in seven patients. We measured vessel wall uptake using the maximal standardized uptake value (SUV), and the mean and maximal blood target-to-background ratios (TBR) of the symptomatic carotid arteries. Blood pool activity (BPA) was measured as the mean SUV of the superior vena cava (SVC) and jugular vein of these 12 patients, and in 14 age- and gender-matched patients who underwent whole-body F-18 FDG PET/CT examinations 1 h after injection. Results F-18 FDG PET/CT revealed visible F-18 FDG uptake in all patients with symptomatic carotid plaques. Maximal SUV did not differ between groups evaluated at 2 h and 3 h (2.62 ± 0.45 vs 3.00 ± 0.85, p  = 0.335). However, mean (2.04 ± 0.22 vs 3.54 ± 0.62, p  
ISSN:1869-3474
1869-3482
DOI:10.1007/s13139-010-0043-y