4.7 Article

Non-malignant FDG uptake in infradiaphragmatic adipose tissue: a new site of physiological tracer biodistribution characterised by PET/CT

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00259-004-1506-0

关键词

PET/CT; FDG; biodistribution; abdomen; cancer

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The purpose of this study was to characterise a benign pattern of infradiaphragmatic F-18-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) uptake in cancer patients using PET/CT. Infradiaphragmatic foci of FDG uptake, localised by PET/CT in regions of normal fat tissues, were demonstrated, in conjunction with fatty uptake in the neck and shoulders, in 9 of 1,241 (0.7%) patients. The imaging and clinical characteristics of this pattern and its possible clinical significance were assessed. PET/CT precisely localised infradiaphragmatic fat uptake (IDFU) within normal retroperitoneal fatty tissue of the perirenal space (nine patients) and in the paracolic or parahepatic space (four patients). Perirenal uptake was bilateral in five patients and focal in six. Paracolic and parahepatic uptake was bilateral in three patients and linear in all four patients. There was no evidence of malignancy at any of the sites during a follow-up period of 9-21 months. IDFU was significantly more prevalent in young patients assessed for monitoring response to therapy, and was always associated with the benign supradiaphragmatic uptake pattern, although its prevalence was significantly lower. There were no significant differences between the clinical characteristics of these two patterns of benign fatty FDG uptake. It is concluded that PET/CT allows for precise identification of increased FDG uptake in abdominal fatty tissue and further exclusion of disease at such sites. This benign uptake may represent increased glucose consumption in activated brown adipose tissue, similar to the mechanism suggested for supradiaphragmatic uptake. Recognition of this benign IDFU pattern is important for correct interpretation of abdominal PET findings in cancer patients.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据