Muscular FDG uptake after chewing chewing gum in a patient with Hodgkin disease

Clinical Nuclear Medicine

Volumn 32, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 124-127

  Vock, Jacqueline ^a   Juengling, Freimut D ^a,b   Krause, Thomas ^a   Wissmeyer, Michael ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BERN   (Switzerland)

^b St Claraspital ^*  (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Artifact; FDG PET; Hodgkin disease; Muscular uptake

Indexed keywords

FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F 18;

ADULT; ANAMNESIS; ARTICLE; CANCER REGRESSION; CANCER STAGING; CASE REPORT; CHEEK; CHEMOTHERAPY; CHEWING GUM; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; DRUG UPTAKE; HODGKIN DISEASE; HUMAN; MALE; MASSETER MUSCLE; MASTICATION; MUSCLE CONTRACTION; MUSCLE HYPERTROPHY; PATHOLOGY; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY;

ADULT; ARTIFACTS; CHEWING GUM; FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F18; HEAD; HODGKIN DISEASE; HUMANS; MALE; MUSCLES; NECK; RADIOPHARMACEUTICALS;

EID: 33846422321     PISSN: 03639762     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.rlu.0000252337.14196.ed     Document Type: Article

References (13)

1. Cook GJ, Fogelman I, Maisey MN. Normal physiological and benign pathological variants of 18-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose positron-emission tomography scanning: potential for error in interpretation. Semin Nucl Med. 1996;26:308-314.
2. Gordon BA, Flanagan FL, Dehdashti F. Whole-body positron emission tomography: normal variations, pitfalls, and technical considerations. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1997;169:1675-1680.
3. Kostakoglu L, Hardoff R, Mirtcheva R, et al. PET-CT fusion imaging in differentiating physiologic from pathologic FDG uptake. Radiographics. 2004;24:1411-1431.
4. Shreve PD, Anzai Y, Wahl RL. Pitfalls in oncologic diagnosis with FDG PET imaging: physiologic and benign variants. Radiographics. 1999;19:61-77; quiz 150-151.
5. Abouzied MM, Crawford ES, et al. 18F-FDG imaging: pitfalls and artifacts. J Nucl Med Technol. 2005;33:145-155.
6. Stokkel MPM, Bongers V, Hordijk GJ, et al. FDG positron emission tomography in head and neck cancer: pitfall or pathology? Clin Nucl Med. 1999;24:950-954.
7. Castellucci P, Nanni C, Farsad M, et al. Potential pitfalls of 18F-FDG PET in a large series of patients treated for malignant lymphoma: prevalence and scan interpretation. Nucl Med Commun. 2005;26:689-694.
8. Sandherr M, von Schilling C, Link T, et al. Pitfalls in imaging Hodgkin's disease with computed tomography and positron emission tomography using fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose. Ann Oncol. 2001;12:719-722.
9. Sonet A, Graux C, Nollevaux MC, et al. Unsuspected FDG-PET findings in the follow-up of patients with lymphoma. Ann Hematol. 2006 Oct 5 [Epub ahead of print].
10. Kazama T, Faria SC, Varavithya V, et al. FDG PET in the evaluation of treatment for lymphoma: clinical usefulness and pitfalls. Radiographics. 2005;25:191-207.
11. Bhargava P, Zhuang H, Kumar R, et al. Iatrogenic artifacts on wholebody F-18 FDG PET imaging. Clin Nucl Med. 2004;29:429-439.
12. Pitini V, Navarra G, Cavallari V, et al. Pitfalls of positron emission tomography for assessing relapse in Hodgkin's disease: a case report. Haematologica. 2006;91(suppl):ECR38.
13. Ravizzini G, Nguyen M, Schuster DM, et al. Central line injection artifact simulating paratracheal adenopathy on FDG PET imaging. Clin Nucl Med. 2004;29:735-737.