RadioGraphics, Vol 18, 805-823, Copyright © 1998 by Radiological Society of North America

ARTICLES

FDG PET of the retroperitoneum: normal anatomy, variants, pathologic conditions, and strategies to avoid diagnostic pitfalls

HJ Vesselle and FD Miraldi
Department of Radiology, University Hospitals of Cleveland, Ohio, USA.

Evaluation of the retroperitoneum is important to assess the extent of retroperitoneal malignancies and because the retroperitoneum is a route of nodal spread for other malignancies. Positron emission tomography (PET) with 2-[fluorine-18]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose (FDG) allows detection of small malignant nodes not identified or not meeting size criteria for malignancy with computed tomography (CT) and tumor recurrences in surgical beds that are otherwise difficult to assess. However, evaluation of retroperitoneal malignancies or adenopathy with FDG PET can be complicated by urinary and colonic activity or anatomic variants. Urinary artifacts are avoided with intravenous hydration, administration of furosemide, and catheterization and retrograde filling of the bladder with saline solution. Colonic artifacts are avoided by cleansing the bowel with an isosmotic solution. FDG PET is useful in assessing the retroperitoneum for adenopathy in malignancies such as testicular cancer; lymphoma; and rectal ovarian, or cervical cancer that spread along retroperitoneal lymphatics. FDG PET is especially useful for detection of malignant nodes that do not meet size criteria at CT or when lack of retroperitoneal fat makes it difficult to identify retroperitoneal nodes with CT. FDG PET has an important role in evaluation of postoperative beds, where CT has limited useful because of altered anatomy, surgical clip artifacts, and scar issue.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				B. R. Landau, C. L. Spring-Robinson, R. F. Muzic Jr., N. Rachdaoui, D. Rubin, M. S. Berridge, W. C. Schumann, V. Chandramouli, T. S. Kern, and F. Ismail-Beigi 6-Fluoro-6-deoxy-D-glucose as a tracer of glucose transport Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab, July 1, 2007; 293(1): E237 - E245. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. A. Anjos, E. C.S.C. Etchebehere, C. D. Ramos, A. O. Santos, C. Albertotti, and E. E. Camargo 18F-FDG PET/CT Delayed Images After Diuretic for Restaging Invasive Bladder Cancer J. Nucl. Med., May 1, 2007; 48(5): 764 - 770. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. Lopez-Gandul, G. Perez-Moure, J.R. Garcia-Garzon, M. Soler-Peter, M. Simo-Perdigo, and F. Lomena Intravenous Furosemide Injection During 18F-FDG PET Acquisition J. Nucl. Med. Technol., December 1, 2006; 34(4): 228 - 231. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. A. Blake, A. Singh, B. N. Setty, J. Slattery, M. Kalra, M. M. Maher, D. V. Sahani, A. J. Fischman, and P. R. Mueller Pearls and Pitfalls in Interpretation of Abdominal and Pelvic PET-CT RadioGraphics, September 1, 2006; 26(5): 1335 - 1353. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				N. Nair and S. Basu Selected Cases Demonstrating the Value of Furosemide-Primed 18F-FDG PET in Identifying Adrenal Involvement J. Nucl. Med. Technol., September 1, 2005; 33(3): 166 - 171. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				N. Subhas, P. V. Patel, H. K. Pannu, H. A. Jacene, E. K. Fishman, and R. L. Wahl Imaging of Pelvic Malignancies with In-Line FDG PET-CT: Case Examples and Common Pitfalls of FDG PET RadioGraphics, July 1, 2005; 25(4): 1031 - 1043. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				V. Kapoor, B. M. McCook, and F. S. Torok An Introduction to PET-CT Imaging RadioGraphics, March 1, 2004; 24(2): 523 - 543. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				H. Agress Jr and B. Z. Cooper Detection of Clinically Unexpected Malignant and Premalignant Tumors with Whole-Body FDG PET: Histopathologic Comparison Radiology, February 1, 2004; 230(2): 417 - 422. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. D. Shreve, Y. Anzai, and R. L. Wahl Pitfalls in Oncologic Diagnosis with FDG PET Imaging: Physiologic and Benign Variants RadioGraphics, January 1, 1999; 19(1): 61 - 77. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]