| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
EDUCATION EXHIBIT |
1 From the Department of Radiology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, 200 Lothrop St, Pittsburgh, PA 15213. Received December 12, 2002; revision requested March 24, 2003; final revision received and accepted June 16. Address correspondence to V.K. (e-mail: kapoorv@msx.upmc.edu).
Cancer is one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality in developed countries such as the United States. Complex clinical decisions about treatment of oncologic patients are largely guided by imaging findings, among other factors. Most radiologic procedures map the anatomy and morphology of tumors with little or no information about their metabolism. Positron emission tomography (PET) performed with 2-[fluorine-18]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose (FDG) has proved valuable in providing important tumor-related qualitative and quantitative metabolic information that is critical to diagnosis and follow-up. PET–computed tomography (CT) is a unique combination of the cross-sectional anatomic information provided by CT and the metabolic information provided by PET, which are acquired during a single examination and fused. FDG PET–CT offers several advantages over PET alone; the most important is the ability to accurately localize increased FDG activity to specific normal or abnormal anatomic locations, which may be difficult or even impossible with PET alone. Understanding the principles of FDG PET–CT and the optimal scanning techniques and recognizing the potential pitfalls and limitations are important for advantageous use of this imaging modality.
© RSNA, 2004
Index Terms: Data fusion • Dual-modality imaging, PET/CT • Fluorine, radioactive, **.121662 • Images, fusion • Neoplasms, PET, **.12163, **.12166 • Positron emission tomography (PET), **.12163
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  E Ghersin, Z Keidar, D J Eldad, R Bar-Shalom, D Fischer, and S Halachmi Multimodality imaging of direct ureteric involvement in non-Hodgkin's lymphoma using PET/CT, CT urography and antegrade CT pyelography Br. J. Radiol., November 1, 2007; 80(959): e283 - e286. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A C Pfannenberg, P Aschoff, K Brechtel, M Muller, M Klein, R Bares, C D Claussen, and S M Eschmann Value of contrast-enhanced multiphase CT in combined PET/CT protocols for oncological imaging Br. J. Radiol., June 1, 2007; 80(954): 437 - 445. [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]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 P. Raanani, Y. Shasha, C. Perry, U. Metser, E. Naparstek, S. Apter, A. Nagler, A. Polliack, I. Ben-Bassat, and E. Even-Sapir Is CT scan still necessary for staging in Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma patients in the PET/CT era? Ann. Onc., January 1, 2006; 17(1): 117 - 122. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 R. Shekhar, V. Walimbe, S. Raja, V. Zagrodsky, M. Kanvinde, G. Wu, and B. Bybel Automated 3-Dimensional Elastic Registration of Whole-Body PET and CT from Separate or Combined Scanners J. Nucl. Med., September 1, 2005; 46(9): 1488 - 1496. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 V. Kapoor, M. B. Fukui, and B. M. McCook Role of 18FFDG PET/CT in the Treatment of Head and Neck Cancers: Principles, Technique, Normal Distribution, and Initial Staging Am. J. Roentgenol., February 1, 2005; 184(2): 579 - 587. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| RADIOGRAPHICS | RADIOLOGY | RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE |
