Background & objectives:There is a growing concern over the radiation exposure of patients from undergoing 18FDG PET/CT (18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography) whole body investigations. The aim of the present study was to study the kinetics of 18FDG distributions and estimate the radiation dose received by patients undergoing 18FDG whole body PET/CT investigations.Methods:Dynamic PET scans in different regions of the body were performed in 49 patients so as to measure percentage uptake of 18FDG in brain, liver, spleen, adrenals, kidneys and stomach. The residence time in these organs was calculated and radiation dose was estimated using OLINDA software. The radiation dose from the CT component was computed using the software CT-Expo and measured using computed tomography dose index (CTDI) phantom and ionization chamber. As per the clinical protocol, the patients were refrained from eating and drinking for a minimum period of 4 h prior to the study.Results:The estimated residence time in males was 0.196 h (brain), 0.09 h (liver), 0.007 h (spleen), 0.0006 h (adrenals), 0.013 h (kidneys) and 0.005 h (stomach) whereas it was 0.189 h (brain), 0.11 h (liver), 0.01 h (spleen), 0.0007 h (adrenals), 0.02 h (kidneys) and 0.004 h (stomach) in females. The effective dose was found to be 0.020 mSv/MBq in males and 0.025 mSv/MBq in females from internally administered 18FDG and 6.8 mSv in males and 7.9 mSv in females from the CT component. For an administered activity of 370 MBq of 18FDG, the effective dose from PET/CT investigations was estimated to be 14.2 mSv in males and 17.2 mSv in females.Interpretation & conclusions:The present results did not demonstrate significant difference in the kinetics of 18FDG distribution in male and female patients. The estimated PET/CT doses were found to be higher than many other conventional diagnostic radiology examinations suggesting that all efforts should be made to clinically justify and carefully weigh the risk-benefit ratios prior to every 18FDG whole body PET/CT scan.

Total 84 patients were included in this study out of which 50 were males and 34 were females. During overall comparison between males and females, no significant difference was noted in DNA damage parameters: Comet TM and MNBC%.

The effective radiation doses from whole body PET/CT examination was approximately 4-8 times higher than the background radiation dose from both (18)F-FDG and (18)F-FDOPA scans, while it was 1-3 times the background radiation dose from PET/CT scans of brain.

Delayed Tc-Tetrofosmin scintigraphy is a highly sensitive and specific method for characterizing solitary thyroid nodules, while color Doppler has a low sensitivity but relatively high specificity in differentiating benign from malignant thyroid lesions.

Aims: This study aims to derive simple yet robust formula(s) for the calculation of cranial tumor volume using linear tumor dimensions in anterioposterior (AP), mediolateral (ML) and craniocaudal (CC) directions and also propose a reproducible methodology for tumor dimension measurements. Materials and Methods: Magnetic resonance images (MRI) of 337 patients planned for Gammaknife Stereotactic Radiosurgery for different types of brain tumors were analyzed using Leksell Gamma Plan (LGP) software. Tumor volume in three dimensional was outlined and maximum tumor diameters were measured in three orthogonal directions AP, ML, and CC on the MRI. Formulas were derived to calculate tumor volume from AP, ML, and CC diameters using linear regression technique. An agreement between the calculated volume and standard volume observed from LGP software was determined using Bland Altman (B-A) plot. A comparison was made between the volume calculated using traditionally used formula of ellipsoid, standard volume obtained from LGP software and volume calculated from formulas derived in the present study. Results: The tumors were divided into two categories based on their size for better volume prediction. The tumors having product of their diameters in the range 0–2.5cc were called “small tumors” and the formula proposed for their volume estimation ( V = 1.513) × (AP × ML × CC) + 0.047 ) was found to predict the tumor volume with an average bias of 0.0005cc. For “large tumors,” having product of diameters in the range 2.5–36cc, the proposed formula ( V = 0.444 × (AP × ML × CC) + 0.339 ) predicted the tumor volume with an average bias of 0.007cc. Conclusions: The two formulas proposed in the study are more accurate as compared to the commonly used formula that considers the tumors as ellipsoids. The methodology proposed in the study for measurement of linear tumor dimensions is simple and reproducible.