Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
The Scientific World Journal
Volume 2012, Article ID 979867, 5 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1100/2012/979867
Research Article

Prevalence of Clinically Significant Extraosseous Findings on Unenhanced CT Portions of 18F-Fluoride PET/CT Bone Scans

Department of Nuclear Medicine, Yuan's General Hospital, 162 Cheng-Kung 1st Road, Kaohsiung 802, Taiwan

Received 13 June 2012; Accepted 24 August 2012

Academic Editors: A. Frenkel, P. Hartvig, and D. Morris

Copyright © 2012 Chao-Jung Chen and Shih-Ya Ma. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Linked References

  1. F. D. Grant, F. H. Fahey, A. B. Packard, R. T. Davis, A. Alavi, and S. T. Treves, “Skeletal PET with 18F-fluoride: applying new technology to an old tracer,” Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 49, no. 1, pp. 68–78, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  2. M. M. Osman, C. Cohade, E. K. Fishman, and R. L. Wahl, “Clinically significant incidental findings on the unenhanced CT portion of PET/CT studies: frequency in 250 patients,” Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 46, no. 8, pp. 1352–1355, 2005. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  3. L. Husmann, F. Tatsugami, U. Aepli et al., “Prevalence of noncardiac findings on low dose 64-slice computed tomography used for attenuation correction in myocardial perfusion imaging with SPECT,” International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging, vol. 25, no. 8, pp. 859–865, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  4. S. Goetze, H. K. Pannu, and R. L. Wahl, “Clinically significant abnormal findings on the “nondiagnostic” CT portion of low-amperage-CT attenuation-corrected myocardial perfusion SPECT/CT studies,” Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 47, no. 8, pp. 1312–1318, 2006. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  5. H. Schirrmeister, A. Guhlmann, K. Elsner et al., “Sensitivity in detecting osseous lesions depends on anatomic localization: planar bone scintigraphy versus 18F PET,” Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 40, no. 10, pp. 1623–1629, 1999. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  6. H. Schirrmeister, G. Glatting, J. Hetzel et al., “Prospective evaluation of the clinical value of planar bone scans, SPECT, and 18F-labeled NaF PET in newly diagnosed lung cancer,” Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 42, no. 12, pp. 1800–1804, 2001. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  7. E. Even-Sapir, U. Metser, G. Flusser et al., “Assessment of malignant skeletal disease: initial experience with 18F-fluoride PET/CT and comparison between 18F-fluoride PET and 18F-fluoride PET/CT,” Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 272–278, 2004. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  8. E. Even-Sapir, U. Metser, E. Mishani, G. Lievshitz, H. Lerman, and I. Leibovitch, “The detection of bone metastases in patients with high-risk prostate cancer: 99mTc-MDP planar bone scintigraphy, single- and multi-field-of-view SPECT, 18F-fluoride PET, and 18F-fluoride PET/CT,” Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 287–297, 2006. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  9. R. F. Yen, C. Y. Chen, M. F. Cheng et al., “The diagnostic and prognostic effectiveness of F-18 sodium fluoride PET-CT in detecting bone metastases for hepatocellular carcinoma patients,” Nuclear Medicine Communications, vol. 31, no. 7, pp. 637–645, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  10. G. Veronesi, M. Bellomi, J. L. Mulshine et al., “Lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography: a non-invasive diagnostic protocol for baseline lung nodules,” Lung Cancer, vol. 61, no. 3, pp. 340–349, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  11. H. MacMahon, J. H. M. Austin, G. Gamsu et al., “Guidelines for management of small pulmonary nodules detected on CT scans: a statement from the Fleischner Society,” Radiology, vol. 237, no. 2, pp. 395–400, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  12. H. Kuehl, P. Veit, S. J. Rosenbaum, A. Bockisch, and G. Antoch, “Can PET/CT replace separate diagnostic CT for cancer imaging? Optimizing CT protocols for imaging cancers of the chest and abdomen,” Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 45S–57S, 2007. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  13. B. Rodríguez-Vigil, N. Gómez-León, I. Pinilla et al., “PET/CT in lymphoma: prospective study of enhanced full-dose PET/CT versus unenhanced low-dose PET/CT,” Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 47, no. 10, pp. 1643–1648, 2006. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  14. M. J. Gollub, R. Hong, D. M. Sarasohn, and T. Akhurst, “Limitations of CT during PET/CT,” Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 48, no. 10, pp. 1583–1591, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  15. G. Antoch, L. S. Freudenberg, T. Beyer, A. Bockisch, and J. F. Debatin, “To enhance or not to enhance? 18F-FDG and CT contrast agents in dual-modality 18F-FDG PET/CT,” Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 45, pp. 56S–65S, 2004. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  16. H. Schöder, H. W. D. Yeung, and S. M. Larson, “CT in PET/CT: essential features of interpretation,” Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 46, no. 8, pp. 1249–1251, 2005. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  17. R. E. Coleman, D. Delbeke, M. J. Guiberteau et al., “Concurrent PET/CT with an integrated imaging system: intersociety dialogue from the joint working group of the American College of Radiology, the Society of Nuclear Medicine, and the Society of Computed Body Tomography and Magnetic Resonance,” Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 46, no. 7, pp. 1225–1239, 2005. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus