Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Difference in arterial FDG accumulation in healthy study participants between digital PET/CT and standard PET/CT

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Annals of Nuclear Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

To evaluate the differences in FDG accumulation in arteries throughout the body between digital and standard PET/CT.

Methods

Forty-six people who had FDG-PET examinations with a digital PET/CT scanner for health screening between April 2020 and March 2021 and had previous examinations with a standard PET/CT scanner were the study participants. FDG accumulation in arteries throughout the body was visually assessed in each segment. Scan was considered positive when arterial FDG accumulation was equal to or greater than that of the liver. The positivity rates for general arteries and each arterial segment were compared between the two kinds of scanners. If any one of the arterial segments was considered positive, the general arteries were classified as positive. Moreover, the rate of change in results from the standard PET/CT to the digital scanner in the same individual (negative to positive, positive to negative) was examined.

Results

In the evaluation of general arteries, the positivity rates were 21.7% (10 cases) for the standard PET/CT, whereas positive rates were 97.8% (45 cases) for the digital PET/CT (p < 0.001). In all arterial segments, the positivity rate was significantly higher with the digital PET/CT compared to the standard PET/CT; those with the digital PET/CT were, respectively, 95.7%, 87.0%, 73.9%, 37.0%, 34.8%, and 21.7% in the femoral, brachial, aortic, subclavian, iliac, and carotid arteries. On the other hand, those with the standard PET/CT were 13.0%, 13.0%, 19.6%, 2.2%, 0%, and 4.4% in segments in the above order. Changes from negative to positive were shown in many cases; 35 cases (76.0%) of general arteries, 38 cases (82.6%) for the femoral artery, and 34 cases (73.9%) for the brachial artery. The exception was one case in which a change from positive to negative was confirmed in the carotid artery. In all arteries considered to be positive, FDG accumulation was not greater than but was equal to that in the liver with both scanners.

Conclusions

Arterial FDG accumulation was significantly higher with digital PET/CT compared to conventional PET/CT. With digital PET/CT, an arterial FDG accumulation equal to the liver may not to be considered as abnormal accumulation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kelloff GJ, Hoffman JM, Johnson B, Scher HI, Siegel BA, Cheng EY, et al. Progress and promise of FDG-PET imaging for cancer patient management and oncologic drug development. Clin Cancer Res. 2005;11(8):2785–808.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Boellaard R, Delgado-Bolton R, Oyen WJG, Giammarile F, Tatsch K, Eschner W, et al. FDG PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour imaging: version 2.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015;42:328–54.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Ichiya Y, Kuwabara Y, Sasaki M, Yoshida T, Akashi Y, Murayama S, et al. FDG-PET in infectious lesions: the detection and assessment of lesion activity. Ann Nucl Med. 1996;10:185–91.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Slart RHJA, Glaudemans AWJM, Chareonthaitawee P, Treglia G, Besson FL, Bley TA, et al. FDG-PET/CT(A) imaging in large vessel vasculitis and polymyalgia rheumatica: joint procedural recommendation of the EANM, SNMMI, and the PET Interest Group (PIG), and endorsed by the ASNC. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018;45(7):1250–69.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Histed SN, Lindenberg ML, Mena E, Turkbey B, Choyke PL, Kurdziel KA. Review of functional/anatomical imaging in oncology. Nucl Med Commun. 2012;33(4):349–61.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Wagatsuma K, Miwa K, Sakata M, Oda K, Ono H, Kameyama M, et al. Comparison between new-generation SiPM-based and conventional PMT-based TOF-PET/CT. Physica Med. 2017;42:203–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Nguyen NC, Vercher-Conejero JL, Sattar A, Miller MA, Maniawski PJ, Jordan DW, et al. Image quality and diagnostic performance of a digital PET prototype in patients with oncologic diseases: initial experience and comparison with analog PET. J Nucl Med. 2015;56(9):1378–85.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Baratto L, Park SY, Hatami N, Davidzon G, Srinivas S, Gambhir SS, et al. 18F-FDG silicon photomultiplier PET/CT: a pilot study comparing semi-quantitative measurements with standard PET/CT. PLoS ONE. 2017;12(6): e0178936.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Van Der Geest KSM, Sandovici M, Brouwer E, Macke SL. Diagnostic accuracy of symptoms, physical signs, and laboratory tests for giant cell arteritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Intern Med. 2020;180(10):1295–304.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Hautzel H, Sander O, Heinzel A, Schneider M, Muller HW. Assessment of large-vessel involvement in giant cell arteritis with 18F-FDG PET: introducing an ROC-analysis-based cutoff ratio. J Nuc Med. 2008;49:1107–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Kobayashi Y, Ishii K, Oda K, Nariai T, Tanaka Y, Ishiwata K, et al. Aortic wall inflammation due to Takayasu arteritis imaged with 18F-FDG PET coregistered with enhanced CT. J Nucl Med. 2005;46:917–22.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Nienhuis PH, van Praagh GD, Glaudemans AWJM, Brouwer E, Slart RHJA. A review on the value of imaging in differentiating between large vessel vasculitis and atherosclerosis. J Pers Med. 2021;11:236.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Lederman RJ, Raylman RR, Fisher SJ, Kison PV, San H, Nabel EG, et al. Detection of atherosclerosis using a novel positron-sensitive probe and 18-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG). Nucl Med Commun. 2001;22(7):747–53.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Hoilund-Carlsen PF, Moghbel MC, Gerke O, Alavi A. Evolvinv role of PET in detecting and characterizing atherosclerosis. PET Clin. 2019;14(2):197–209.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Tatsumi M, Cohade C, Nakamoto Y, Wahl RL. Fluorodeoxyglucose uptake in the aortic wall at PET/CT: possible finding for active atherosclerosis. Radiology. 2003;229(3):831–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Yun M, Yeh D, Araujo LI, Jang S, Newberg A, Alavi A. F-18 FDG uptake in the large arteries: a new observation. Clin Nucl Med. 2001;26(4):314–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Belhocine T, Blockmans D, Hustinx R, Vandevivere J, Mortelmans L. Imaging of large vessel vasculitis with 18FDG PET: illusion or reality? A critical review of the literature data. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2003;30(9):1305–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Hoilund-Carlsen PF, Piri R, Madsen PL, Revheim ME, Werner TJ, Alavi A, et al. Atherosclerosis burdens in diabetes mellitus: assessment by PET imaging. Int I Mol Sci. 2022;23(18):10268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Rudd JHF, Myers KS, Bansilal S, Machac J, Rafique A, Farkouh M, et al. (18)Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography imaging of atherosclerotic plaque inflammation is highly reproducible: implications for atherosclerosis therapy trials. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;50(9):892–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Brodmann M, Lipp RW, Passath A, Seinost G, Pabst E, Pilger E. The role of 2–18F-fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose positron emission tomography in the diagnosis of giant cell arteritis of the temporal arteries. Rheumatology. 2004;43(2):241–2.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Weng S, Li Y, Wang Q, Xhao Y, Zhou Y. Differentiation of lower limb vasculitis from physiologic uptake on FDG PET/CT imaging. Ann Nucl Med. 2022;37:26–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Kochi Medical School, Kochi University, Kohasu, Oko-Cho, Nankoku, Kochi, 783-8505, Japan

    Noriko Nitta, Rika Yoshimatsu, Hitomi Iwasa, Kousuke Nakaji, Kana Miyatake, Miki Nishimori, Tomohiro Matsumoto, Tomoaki Yamanishi & Takuji Yamagami

Authors
  1. Noriko Nitta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rika Yoshimatsu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hitomi Iwasa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Kousuke Nakaji
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Kana Miyatake
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Miki Nishimori
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Tomohiro Matsumoto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Tomoaki Yamanishi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Takuji Yamagami
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rika Yoshimatsu.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nitta, N., Yoshimatsu, R., Iwasa, H. et al. Difference in arterial FDG accumulation in healthy study participants between digital PET/CT and standard PET/CT. Ann Nucl Med 38, 96–102 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12149-023-01875-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12149-023-01875-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation