Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Image Quality and Interpretation of [18F]-FES-PET: Is There any Effect of Food Intake?
Boers, Jorianne; Giatagana, Katerina; Schröder, Carolina P; Hospers, Geke A P; de Vries, Erik F J; Glaudemans, Andor W J M.
Afiliação
  • Boers J; Department of Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, 9700 RB Groningen, The Netherlands.
  • Giatagana K; Department of Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, 9700 RB Groningen, The Netherlands.
  • Schröder CP; Department of Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, 9700 RB Groningen, The Netherlands.
  • Hospers GAP; Department of Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, 9700 RB Groningen, The Netherlands.
  • de Vries EFJ; Department of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, 9700 RB Groningen, The Netherlands.
  • Glaudemans AWJM; Department of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, 9700 RB Groningen, The Netherlands.
Diagnostics (Basel) ; 10(10)2020 Sep 26.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32993099
BACKGROUND: High physiological 16α-[18F]-fluoro-17ß-estradiol ([18F]-FES) uptake in the abdomen is a limitation of this positron emission tomography (PET) tracer. Therefore, we investigated the effect of food intake prior to PET acquisition on abdominal background activity in [18F]-FES-PET scans. METHODS: Breast cancer patients referred for [18F]-FES-PET were included. Three groups were designed: (1) patients who consumed a chocolate bar (fatty meal) between tracer injection and imaging (n = 20), (2) patients who fasted before imaging (n = 20), and (3) patients without diet restrictions (control group, n = 20). We compared the physiological [18F]-FES uptake, expressed as mean standardized uptake value (SUVmean), in the abdomen between groups. RESULTS: A significant difference in [18F]-FES uptake in the gall bladder and stomach lumen was observed between groups, with the lowest values for the chocolate group and highest for the fasting group (p = 0.015 and p = 0.011, respectively). Post hoc analysis showed significant differences in the SUVmean of these organs between the chocolate and fasting groups, but not between the chocolate and control groups. CONCLUSION: This exploratory study showed that, compared to fasting, eating chocolate decreases physiological gall bladder and stomach [18F]-FES uptake; further reduction through a normal diet was not seen. A prospective study is warranted to confirm this finding.
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Tipo de estudo: Observational_studies Idioma: En Revista: Diagnostics (Basel) Ano de publicação: 2020 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Holanda

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Tipo de estudo: Observational_studies Idioma: En Revista: Diagnostics (Basel) Ano de publicação: 2020 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Holanda