HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) CME Test (opens in a new window) Submit a response View responses Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Kostakoglu, L. Articles by Goldsmith, S. J. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Kostakoglu, L. Articles by Goldsmith, S. J. Related Collections Computed Tomography Nuclear Medicine

PET-CT Fusion Imaging in Differentiating Physiologic from Pathologic FDG Uptake¹

¹ From the Division of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Radiology, New York Presbyterian Hospital, Weill Medical College of Cornell University, 525 E 68th St, Starr No 221, New York, NY 10021 (L.K., R.M., S.J.G.); and the Department of Nuclear Medicine, Rabin Medical Center, Sackler School of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv, Israel (R.H.). Received October 6, 2003; revision requested November 25 and received January 24, 2004; accepted January 30. All authors have no financial relationships to disclose. Address correspondence to L.K. (e-mail: lak2005@med.cornell.edu).

Interpretation of positron emission tomographic (PET) scans in the absence of correlative anatomic information can be challenging. PET–computed tomography (CT) fusion imaging is a novel multimodality technology that allows the correlation of findings from two concurrent imaging modalities in a comprehensive examination. CT demonstrates exquisite anatomic detail but does not provide functional information, whereas 2-[fluorine 18]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose (FDG) PET reveals aspects of tumor function and allows metabolic measurements. Subtle findings at FDG PET that might otherwise be disregarded or interpreted as physiologic variants may lead to detection of a malignant process after being correlated with simultaneously acquired CT findings. Alternatively, equivocal CT findings, which could represent malignant tumor, reactive changes, or fibrosis, can be clarified with the help of the additional metabolic information provided by concurrent FDG PET. Accurate interpretation of FDG PET scans requires a thorough knowledge of the normal physiologic distribution of FDG and of normal variants that may reduce the accuracy of PET studies, thereby significantly affecting patient treatment. Although in rare instances PET-CT cannot help resolve the diagnostic dilemma, it is enjoying widespread acceptance in the medical imaging community, usually allowing differentiation of physiologic variants from juxtaposed or mimetic neoplastic lesions and more accurate tumor localization.

© RSNA, 2004

Index Terms: Computed tomography (CT), **.1211² • Computed tomography (CT), utilization • Fluorine, radioactive • Positron emission tomography (PET), **.12163 • Radionuclide imaging, in diagnosis of neoplasms, **.12163

This article has been cited by other articles:

				R. M. Sharkey, H. Karacay, S. Vallabhajosula, W. J. McBride, E. A. Rossi, C.-H. Chang, S. J. Goldsmith, and D. M. Goldenberg Metastatic Human Colonic Carcinoma: Molecular Imaging with Pretargeted SPECT and PET in a Mouse Model Radiology, February 1, 2008; 246(2): 497 - 507. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. B. Elaini, S. K. Shetty, V. M. Chapman, D. V. Sahani, G. W. Boland, A. T. Sweeney, M. M. Maher, J. T. Slattery, P. R. Mueller, and M. A. Blake Improved Detection and Characterization of Adrenal Disease with PET-CT RadioGraphics, May 1, 2007; 27(3): 755 - 767. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. M. Blodgett, C. C. Meltzer, and D. W. Townsend PET/CT: Form and Function Radiology, February 1, 2007; 242(2): 360 - 385. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				H. B. Prabhakar, D. V. Sahani, A. J. Fischman, P. R. Mueller, and M. A. Blake Bowel Hot Spots at PET-CT RadioGraphics, January 1, 2007; 27(1): 145 - 159. [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]

				E. Even-Sapir Imaging of Malignant Bone Involvement by Morphologic, Scintigraphic, and Hybrid Modalities J. Nucl. Med., August 1, 2005; 46(8): 1356 - 1367. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				O. Israel, N. Yefremov, R. Bar-Shalom, O. Kagana, A. Frenkel, Z. Keidar, and D. Fischer PET/CT Detection of Unexpected Gastrointestinal Foci of 18F-FDG Uptake: Incidence, Localization Patterns, and Clinical Significance J. Nucl. Med., May 1, 2005; 46(5): 758 - 762. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

eLetters: