| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
Experimental Studies |
1 From the Department of Radiology, Division of Nuclear Medicine, Johns Hopkins University Hospital, 601 N Caroline St, Rm 3223, Baltimore, MD 21287-0817. Received March 27, 2002; revision requested June 10; final revision received October 11; accepted October 23. Address correspondence to R.L.W. (e-mail: rwahl@jhmi.edu).
PURPOSE: To investigate the effects of intravenous contrast agents on quantitative values obtained with a combined positron emission tomographic (PET) and computed tomographic (CT) scanner by using several phantoms and a dog.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fluorine 18 fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) was mixed with different concentrations of contrast agent with the same syringe (phantom 1), and the phantom was scanned. After image reconstruction with various attenuation maps, radioactivity concentrations were compared. Then, FDG solutions with (phantom 2) or surrounded by (phantom 3) various concentrations of contrast agent were scanned repeatedly, and radioactivity concentration was compared. Finally, PET and CT with and without contrast agent were performed in a dog. PET images were reconstructed by using different attenuation maps, and radioactivity concentrations were compared. The radioactivity concentration on germanium 68 (68Ge)-based corrected images was regarded as standard, and percentage bias, defined as difference divided by measured activity of 68Ge-based corrected images, was assessed. The relationship between the concentration of contrast agent and the percentage bias was assessed with the Pearson coefficient r, and the significance of correlations was evaluated with the Fisher z test.
RESULTS: All phantom studies demonstrated that presence of a contrast agent resulted in overestimation of emission data. CT numbers showed a strong positive correlation with the percentage bias in phantoms 2 (r = 0.999) and 3 (r = 0.987); the maximum percentage bias at 1,360 HU reached approximately 45%. These effects were independent of FDG concentration. In a canine model, presence of a contrast agent also increased emission activity, but the percentage bias was less than 15% in the liver and smaller in all other organs except the kidney (26%).
CONCLUSION: High concentrations of a contrast agent caused considerable overestimation of apparent tracer activity in phantom studies; however, the emission bias was relatively modest in vivo, except in areas with very high contrast agent concentrations.
© RSNA, 2003
Index terms: Animals • Computed tomography (CT), contrast media, **.12111, **.12112, **.121142 • Contrast media, effects • Phantoms • Positron emission tomography (PET), **.12163, **.12166
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  L.-F. de Geus-Oei, D. Vriens, H. W.M. van Laarhoven, W. T.A. van der Graaf, and W. J.G. Oyen Monitoring and Predicting Response to Therapy with 18F-FDG PET in Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review J. Nucl. Med., May 1, 2009; 50(Suppl_1): 43S - 54S. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Martinez-Moller, M. Souvatzoglou, G. Delso, R. A. Bundschuh, C. Chefd'hotel, S. I. Ziegler, N. Navab, M. Schwaiger, and S. G. Nekolla Tissue Classification as a Potential Approach for Attenuation Correction in Whole-Body PET/MRI: Evaluation with PET/CT Data J. Nucl. Med., April 1, 2009; 50(4): 520 - 526. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. Allen-Auerbach and W. A. Weber Measuring Response with FDG-PET: Methodological Aspects Oncologist, April 1, 2009; 14(4): 369 - 377. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. J. Gollub, R. Hong, D. M. Sarasohn, and T. Akhurst Limitations of CT During PET/CT J. Nucl. Med., October 1, 2007; 48(10): 1583 - 1591. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
W. A. Weber and R. Figlin Monitoring Cancer Treatment with PET/CT: Does It Make a Difference? J. Nucl. Med., January 1, 2007; 48(1_suppl): 36S - 44S. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
H. Kuehl, P. Veit, S. J. Rosenbaum, A. Bockisch, and G. Antoch Can PET/CT Replace Separate Diagnostic CT for Cancer Imaging? Optimizing CT Protocols for Imaging Cancers of the Chest and Abdomen J. Nucl. Med., January 1, 2007; 48(1_suppl): 45S - 57S. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
B. Rodriguez-Vigil, N. Gomez-Leon, I. Pinilla, D. Hernandez-Maraver, J. Coya, L. Martin-Curto, and R. Madero PET/CT in Lymphoma: Prospective Study of Enhanced Full-Dose PET/CT Versus Unenhanced Low-Dose PET/CT J. Nucl. Med., October 1, 2006; 47(10): 1643 - 1648. [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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. Delbeke, R. E. Coleman, M. J. Guiberteau, M. L. Brown, H. D. Royal, B. A. Siegel, D. W. Townsend, L. L. Berland, J. A. Parker, G. Zubal, et al. Procedure Guideline for SPECT/CT Imaging 1.0 J. Nucl. Med., July 1, 2006; 47(7): 1227 - 1234. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. Delbeke, R. E. Coleman, M. J. Guiberteau, M. L. Brown, H. D. Royal, B. A. Siegel, D. W. Townsend, L. L. Berland, J. A. Parker, K. Hubner, et al. Procedure Guideline for Tumor Imaging with 18F-FDG PET/CT 1.0 J. Nucl. Med., May 1, 2006; 47(5): 885 - 895. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 O. Mawlawi, J. J. Erasmus, R. F. Munden, T. Pan, A. E. Knight, H. A. Macapinlac, D. A. Podoloff, and M. Chasen Quantifying the Effect of IV Contrast Media on Integrated PET/CT: Clinical Evaluation Am. J. Roentgenol., February 1, 2006; 186(2): 308 - 319. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. Ames, T. Blodgett, and C. Meltzer 18F-FDG Uptake in an Ovary Containing a Hemorrhagic Corpus Luteal Cyst: False-Positive PET/CT in a Patient with Cervical Carcinoma Am. J. Roentgenol., October 1, 2005; 185(4): 1057 - 1059. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. E. Coleman, D. Delbeke, M. J. Guiberteau, P. S. Conti, H. D. Royal, J. C. Weinreb, B. A. Siegel, M. F. Federle, D. W. Townsend, and L. L. Berland Concurrent PET/CT with an Integrated Imaging System: Intersociety Dialogue from the Joint Working Group of the American College of Radiology, the Society of Nuclear Medicine, and the Society of Computed Body Tomography and Magnetic Resonance J. Nucl. Med., July 1, 2005; 46(7): 1225 - 1239. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 B. F. Branstetter IV, T. M. Blodgett, L. A. Zimmer, C. H. Snyderman, J. T. Johnson, S. Raman, and C. C. Meltzer Head and Neck Malignancy: Is PET/CT More Accurate than PET or CT Alone? Radiology, May 1, 2005; 235(2): 580 - 586. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Y.-Y. Yau, W.-S. Chan, Y.-M. Tam, P. Vernon, S. Wong, M. Coel, and S. K.-F. Chu Application of Intravenous Contrast in PET/CT: Does It Really Introduce Significant Attenuation Correction Error? J. Nucl. Med., February 1, 2005; 46(2): 283 - 291. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Gutzeit, G. Antoch, H. Kuhl, T. Egelhof, M. Fischer, E. Hauth, S. Goehde, A. Bockisch, J. Debatin, and L. Freudenberg Unknown Primary Tumors: Detection with Dual-Modality PET/CT--Initial Experience Radiology, January 1, 2005; 234(1): 227 - 234. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. Antoch, L. S. Freudenberg, T. Beyer, A. Bockisch, and J. F. Debatin To Enhance or Not to Enhance? 18F-FDG and CT Contrast Agents in Dual-Modality 18F-FDG PET/CT J. Nucl. Med., January 1, 2004; 45(90010): 56S - 65. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. L. Wahl Why Nearly All PET of Abdominal and Pelvic Cancers Will Be Performed as PET/CT J. Nucl. Med., January 1, 2004; 45(90010): 82S - 95. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
