Spectrum of PET-CT pelvic pitfalls in patients with gynecologic malignancies

Abdominal Imaging

Volumn 37, Issue 6, 2012, Pages 1041-1065

  Gorospe, Luis ^a   Jover Díaz, Raquel ^b   Vicente Bártulos, Agustina ^a  

^a HOSPITAL RAMÓN Y CAJAL   (Spain)

^b Hospital UniversitarioFundación Jiménez Díaz   (Spain)

Author keywords

Fluorodeoxyglucose; Gynecologic cancer; Pitfalls; Positron emission tomography computed tomography

Indexed keywords

FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F 18; GRANULOCYTE COLONY STIMULATING FACTOR; DIAGNOSTIC AGENT; RADIOPHARMACEUTICAL AGENT;

ARTIFACT; BLADDER DIVERTICULUM; BREAST CARCINOMA; CANCER CHEMOTHERAPY; CANCER PATIENT; CANCER RADIOTHERAPY; CANCER STAGING; CHEMORADIOTHERAPY; CLINICAL PROTOCOL; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; CYSTITIS; ENDOMETRIUM CARCINOMA; FALSE NEGATIVE RESULT; GYNECOLOGIC CANCER; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; MALIGNANT NEOPLASTIC DISEASE; MEASUREMENT ACCURACY; OVARY CANCER; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIATION ATTENUATION; RADIATION CYSTITIS; RADIATION INJURY; REVIEW; SPONDYLOLYSIS; UTERINE CERVIX CANCER; UTERINE CERVIX CARCINOMA; COMPUTER ASSISTED EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; FEMALE; FEMALE GENITAL TRACT TUMOR; LUNG EMBOLISM; METABOLISM; METHODOLOGY; PATIENT POSITIONING; SQUAMOUS CELL CARCINOMA; UTERINE CERVIX TUMOR;

CARCINOMA, SQUAMOUS CELL; CLINICAL PROTOCOLS; FEMALE; FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F18; GENITAL NEOPLASMS, FEMALE; HUMANS; PATIENT POSITIONING; POSITRON-EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY AND COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; PULMONARY EMBOLISM; RADIOPHARMACEUTICALS; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS;

EID: 84878172658     PISSN: 09428925     EISSN: 14320509     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00261-012-9867-5     Document Type: Review

References (26)

1. Blake MA, Singh A, Setty BN, et al. (2006) Pearls and pitfalls in interpretation of abdominal and pelvic PET-CT. Radiographics 26(5):1335-1353
2. Subhas N, Patel PV, Pannu HK, et al. (2005) Imaging of pelvic malignancies with in-line FDG PET-CT: case examples and common pitfalls of FDG PET. Radiographics 25(4):1031-1043
3. Schöder H, Larson SM (2004) Positron emission tomography for prostate, bladder, and renal cancer. Semin Nucl Med 34(4):274-292
4. Siegel BA, Dehdashti F (2005) Oncologic PET/CT: current status and controversies. Eur Radiol 15(Suppl 4):D127-D132
5. Cronin CG, Prakash P, Blake MA (2010) Oral and IV contrast agents for the CT portion of PET/CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 195(1):W5-W13
6. Santoso JT, Evans L, Lambrecht L, et al. (2009) Deep venous trombosis in gynecological oncology: incidence and clinical symptoms study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 144(2):173-176
7. De Gaetano AM, Calcagni ML, Rufini V, et al. (2009) Imaging of gynecologic malignancies with FDG PET-CT: case examples, physiologic activity, and pitfalls. Abdom Imaging 34(6):696-711
8. Kapoor V, McCook BM, Torok FS (2004) An introduction to PET-CT imaging. Radiographics 24(2):523-543
9. Antoch G, Freudenberg LS, Stattaus J, et al. (2002) Whole-body positron emission tomography-CT: optimized CT using oral and IV contrast materials. AJR Am J Roentgenol 179(6):1555-1560
10. Nakamoto Y, Chin BB, Kraitchman DL, et al. (2003) Effects of nonionic intravenous contrast agents at PET/CT imaging: phantom and canine studies. Radiology 227(3):817-824
11. McDermott S, Skehan SJ (2010) Whole body imaging in the abdominal cancer patient: pitfalls of PET-CT. Abdom Imaging 35(1):55-69
12. Beyer T, Bockisch A, Kühl H, et al. (2006) Whole-body 18F-FDG PET/CT in the presence of truncation artifacts. J Nucl Med 47(1):91-99
13. Gorospe L, Raman S, Echeveste J, et al. (2005) Whole-body PET/CT: spectrum of physiological variants, artifacts and interpretative pitfalls in cancer patients. Nucl Med Commun 26(8):671-687
14. Dizendorf EV, Treyer V, von Schulthess GK, et al. (2002) Application of oral contrast media in coregistered positron emission tomography-CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 179(2):477-481
15. Prabhakar HB, Sahani DV, Fischman AJ, et al. (2007) Bowel hot spots at PET-CT. Radiographics 27(1):145-159
16. Vesselle HJ, Miraldi FD (1998) FDG PET of the retroperitoneum: normal anatomy, variants, pathologic conditions, and strategies to avoid diagnostic pitfalls. Radiographics 18(4):805-823
17. Moran JK, Lee HB, Blaufox MD (1999) Optimization of urinary FDG excretion during PET imaging. J Nucl Med 40(8):1352-1357
18. Lerman H, Metser U, Grisaru D, et al. (2004) Normal and abnormal 18F-FDG endometrial and ovarian uptake in pre- and postmenopausal patients: assessment by PET/CT. J Nucl Med 45(2):266-271
19. Liu Y (2009) Benign ovarian and endometrial uptake on FDG PET-CT: patterns and pitfalls. Ann Nucl Med 23(2):107-112
20. Shon IH, Fogelman I (2003) F-18 FDG positron emission tomography and benign fractures. Clin Nucl Med 28(3):171-175
21. Shin DS, Shon OJ, Byun SJ, et al. (2008) Differentiation between malignant and benign pathologic fractures with F-18-fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography. Skeletal Radiol 37(5):415-421
22. Khademi S, Westphalen AC, Webb EM, et al. (2009) Frequency and etiology of solitary hot spots in the pelvis at whole-body positron emission tomography/computed tomography imaging. Clin Imaging 33(1):44-48
23. Israel O, Yefremov N, Bar-Shalom R, et al. (2005) PET/CT detection of unexpected gastrointestinal foci of 18F-FDG uptake: incidence, localization patterns, and clinical significance. J Nucl Med 46(5):758-762
24. Metser U, Miller E, Lerman H, et al. (2007) Benign nonphysiologic lesions with increased 18F-FDG uptake on PET/CT: characterization and incidence. AJR Am J Roentgenol 189(5):1203-1210
25. Culverwell AD, Scarsbrook AF, Chowdhury FU (2011) False-positive uptake on 2-[18F]-fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose (FDG) positron-emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) in oncological imaging. Clin Radiol 66(4):366-382
26. Kitajima K, Murakami K, Kaji Y, et al. (2010) Spectrum of FDG PET/CT findings of uterine tumors. AJR Am J Roentgenol 195(3):737-743