Altamirano LJ, Estrada SGR

Language: Spanish
References: 25
Page: 9-19
PDF size: 272.30 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Introduction: It can not be denied that, in the past decade, the functional imaging technology with PET-FDG has been the diagnostic modality with the fastest growth in oncology. Nowadays, the nuclear doctors can locate the metabolic finds with greater anatomic precision and the Radiologists can classify the structural alterations with greater accuracy.
Analysis: With the availability of the new PET/CT technology the anatomic localization of head, neck, abdomen and pelvis cancers will be facilitated, with the consequent better interpretation of images. It will also improve the radiation therapy planning, the treatment effects monitoring and the directed biopsy test.
Conclusion: The dual modality: Positron Emission Tomography (PET) Function and anatomy and Computed Tomography (CT) is the most modern innovation of Nuclear Medicine. Its principal applications in clinical oncology are basically the same of dedicated PET. The advantage of PET/CT studies over dedicated PET is its capacity to plan modulated intensity radiotherapy treatments or surgery of complex anatomic areas such as head and neck regions or pelvis, as well as to tell the difference between physiological impressions from pathological ones.

REFERENCES

1. Czernin Johannes MD, Schelbert Heinrich MD, PhD. PET/CT Imaging: Facts, opinions, hopes and questions. J Nucl Med 2004. 45; 1: 1S-3S.

2. Townsend David W, Carney Jonathan, Yap Jeffrey T and Hall Nathan C PET/TC Today and tomorrow. J Nucl Med 2004; 45: 4S-14S.

3. Towsend DW, Cherry SR. Combining anatomy and function: The path to true image fusion. Eur Radiol 2001; 11: 1968-74.

4. Nakamoto Y, Osman M Conade C et al. PET/CT comparison of quantitative tracer uptake between germanium and CT Transmission attenuation-corrected images. J Nucl Med 2002; 43: 1137-43.

5. Beyer T, Antoch G, Müller S, Egelhof T, Freudenberg LS, Debatin J y Bockisch A. Acquisition protocol considerations for combined PET/CT imaging. J Nucl Med 2004; 45: 25S-35S

6. Hamblen SM, Lowe VJ. Clinical 18F-FDG oncology patient preparation techniques. J Nucl Med Technol 2003; 31: 3-10.

7. Kinahan PE, Hasegawa BH, Beyer T. X-Ray-based attenuation correction for positron emission tomography/computed tomography scanners. Semin Nucl Med 2003; 33: 166-79.

8. Goerres GW, Burger C, Schwitter MR, Heidelberg TN, Seifert B, von Schulthess GK. PET/CT of the abdomen: Optimizing the patient breathing pattern. Eur Radiol 2003; 13: 734-9.

9. Dizendorf E, Hany TF, Buck A, von Schulthess GK, Burger C. Cause and magnitude of the error induced by oral CT contrast agent in CT-based attenuation correction of PET emission studies. J Nucl Med 2003; 44: 732-8.

10. Cohade C, Osman M, Nakamoto Y, Marshall LT, Links JM, Fishman EK, et al. Initial experience with oral contrast in PET/CT: Phantom and clinical studies. J Nucl Med 2003; 44: 412-6.

11. Nehmeh SA, Erdi YE, Kalaigian H, Kolbert KS, Pan T, Yeung H, et al. Correction for oral contrast artifacts in CT attenuation-corrected PET images obtained by combined PET/CT. J Nucl Med 2003; 44: 1940-4.

12. Beyer T, Antoch G, Bockisch A, Stattaus J. Optimized intravenous contrast I PET/CT. J Nucl Med 2005; 46: 429-35.

13. Antoch G, Kuehl H, Kanja J, Lauenstein TAC, Schneemann H, Aut. E, et al. Dual-modality PET/CT scanning with negative oral contrast agent to avoid artifacts: Introduction and evaluation. Radiology 2004; 230: 879-85.

14. Antoch G, Jentzen W, Freudenberg LS, Stattaus J, Mueller SP, Debatin JF, Bockisch A. Effect of oral contrast agents on computed tomography-based positron emission tomography attenuation correction in dual-modality positron emission tomography/computed tomography imaging. Invest Radiol 2003. 38; 12: 784-9.

15. Dizendorf EV, Treyer V, Von Schulthess GK, Hany TF. Application of oral contrast media in coregistered positron emission tomography-CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002. 179; 2: 477-81.

16. Beyer T, Tellmann L, Nickel I, Pietrzyk U. On the use of positioning aids to reduce misregistration in the head and neck in whole body PET/CT studies. J Nucl Med 2005; 46: 596-602.

17. Keyes JW Jr. SUV: Standard uptake or silly useless value? J Nucl Med 1995; 36: 1836-9.

18. Halpern BS, Dahlbom M, Auerbach MA, Schiepers C, Fueger BJ, Weber WA, et al.: Optimizing imaging protocols for overweight and obese patients: A lutetium orthosilicate PET/CT study. J Nucl Med 2005; 46: 603-7.

19. Vogel WV, Oyen WJG, Barentsz JO, et al.: PET/CT: Panacea, redundancy, or something in between? J Nucl Med 2004; 45: 15S-24S.

20. Wu TH, Lee JJ, Wang SC, Su CT, et al. Radiation exposure during transmission measurements: Comparison between CT and germanium-based techniques with a current PET scanner. Eur J Nucl Med Mil Imaging 2004; 31: 38-43.

21. Jaskowiak CJ, Bianco JA, Perlman SB, Fine JP. Influence of reconstruction iterations on 18F-FDG PET/CT standarized uptake values. J Nucl Med 2005; 46: 424-8.

22. International Commission on Radiological Protection. Radiation dose to patients from radiopharmaceuticals. Addendum to ICRP 53. ICRP Publication 80. Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1998.

23. Kamel E, Hany TF, Burger C, Treyer V, Lonn AH, von Schulthess GK, et al. CT vs 68Ge attenuation correction in a combined PET/CT system: Evaluation of the effect of lowering the CT tube current. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2002; 29: 346-50.

24. Cohnen M, Poll LJ, Puettmann C, Ewen K, Saleh A, Modder U. Effective doses in standard protocols for multi-slice CT scanning. Eur Radiol 2003; 13: 1148-53.

25. Jaguer PL, Slart RHJA, Cortens F, Houkstra O. et al.: PET/CT: A matter of opinion? Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2003; 30: 470-1.