Preface

Mettler, Fred A.; Guiberteau, Milton J.

doi:10.1016/b978-1-4557-0104-9.05001-0

Cited by 25 publications

(76 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Other examples include benign sequelae of chemoradiation and surgery that can result in FDG avidity, such as pneumonitis, esophagitis, and osteonecrosis [34]. Diffuse increase in FDG avidity in the bone marrow and spleen is commonly seen after treatment with granulocyte colony stimulating factor, which can also mimic metastases [35]. …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Radiation-induced liver disease as a mimic of liver metastases at serial PET/CT during neoadjuvant chemoradiation of distal esophageal cancer

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To determine the frequency and appearance of radiation-induced liver disease on PET/CT in patients undergoing serial imaging during neoadjuvant chemoradiation of distal esophageal cancer. Materials and Methods In this IRB-approved, HIPAA–compliant retrospective analysis, we identified 112 patients with distal esophageal cancer treated by neoadjuvant chemoradiation who had serial PET/CT imaging available for review. Two readers reviewed all studies in consensus and recorded those cases where new foci of visually detectable increased FDG avidity appeared in the liver during therapy. The etiology of such foci was determined from corresponding findings at CT or MRI, by hepatic biopsy during surgery, by characteristic evolution on post-operative imaging, or by a combination of these methods. Results New foci of FDG avidity developed in the liver during neoadjuvant therapy in 10 of 112 (9%) patients, of whom 9 (8%) were determined to have radiation-induced liver disease based on further imaging and/or biopsy and one of whom had developed interval metastatic disease based on biopsy. In the cases of radiation-induced liver disease, the abnormal foci were found only in the caudate and left hepatic lobes, near the primary tumor, while the patient who developed interval metastatic disease had involvement of the inferior right hepatic lobe, remote from the radiation therapy field. Conclusion New foci of increased FDG avidity are commonly seen in the caudate and left hepatic lobes of the liver during neoadjuvant chemoradiation of distal esophageal cancer, and these findings generally reflect radiation-induced liver disease rather than metastatic disease.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Radiation-induced liver disease as a mimic of liver metastases at serial PET/CT during neoadjuvant chemoradiation of distal esophageal cancer

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The administered activity of 131 I-sodium iodide for thyroid imaging before the mid-1970s was about 1.85 MBq (Harper et al 1965; Wagner 1968; Atkins 1975; McAfee and Subramanian 1984; Drozdovitch et al 2014), then gradually increased to 3.7 MBq (Sodee and Early 1975; Irwin et al 1978; Mettler et al 1986; Sisson 1997). The administered activity of 123 I-sodium iodide for thyroid imaging before the late-1970s was estimated to be 3.7 MBq (Robertson 1982; Wagner et al 1986), then gradually increased to 11.1 MBq in the 1980s (Mettler and Guiberteau 1983, Mettler et al 1986; Wagner et al 1995; Park et al 1994, 1997) and to 14.8 MBq in the mid-1990s (Mettler and Guiberteau 1998; Becker et al 1999; Kowalsky and Falen 2004; Balon et al 2006a; Joyce and Swihart 2011). The administered activity of 99m Tc-pertechnetate for thyroid imaging before the late-1970s was estimated to be 74 MBq (Early et al 1969; Maynard 1971; Barrall and Smith 1976), then increased to 185 MBq in the 1980s (Mettler et al 1986; Wagner et al 1986; NCRP 1996) and to 222 MBq in the mid-1990s (Mettler and Guiberteau 1998; Becker et al 1999; Kowalsky and Falen 2004; Balon et al 2006a; Joyce and Swihart 2011).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Textbooks on nuclear medicine practice in the U.S. (e.g., Blahd 1965, 1971; Wagner 1968, 1995; Maynard 1969, 1971; Sodee and Early 1972, 1975; Mettler and Guiberteau 1983, 1998, 2012; Kowalsky and Falen 2004) and the U.S. Society of Nuclear Medicine procedure guidelines (e.g. Becker et al 1999; Balon et al 2006a, 2006b; Delbeke et al 2006) were consulted as major reference sources.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Use of Radiopharmaceuticals in Diagnostic Nuclear Medicine in the United States

Drozdovitch¹,

Brill²,

Callahan³

et al. 2015

Health Physics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To reconstruct reliable nuclear medicine-related occupational radiation doses or doses received as patients from radiopharmaceuticals over the last five decades, we assessed which radiopharmaceuticals were used in different time periods, their relative frequency of use, and typical values of the administered activity. This paper presents data on the changing patterns of clinical use of radiopharmaceuticals and documents the range of activity administered to adult patients undergoing diagnostic nuclear medicine procedures in the U.S. between 1960 and 2010. Data are presented for 15 diagnostic imaging procedures that include thyroid scan and thyroid uptake, brain scan, brain blood flow, lung perfusion and ventilation, bone, liver, hepatobiliary, bone marrow, pancreas, and kidney scans, cardiac imaging procedures, tumor localization studies, localization of gastrointestinal bleeding, and non-imaging studies of blood volume and iron metabolism. Data on the relative use of radiopharmaceuticals were collected using key informant interviews and comprehensive literature reviews of typical administered activities of these diagnostic nuclear medicine studies. Responses of key informants on relative use of radiopharmaceuticals are in agreement with published literature. Results of this study will be used for retrospective reconstruction of occupational and personal medical radiation doses from diagnostic radiopharmaceuticals to members of the U.S. radiologic technologist’s cohort and in reconstructing radiation doses from occupational or patient radiation exposures to other U.S. workers or patient populations.

show abstract

“…The majority of lung cancer is non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) tumors which consist of subtypes such as adenocarcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, large cell carcinoma and carcinoid tumor (2). 18F-fluoro-2-deoxy-glucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (18F-FDG PET/CT) is widely used throughout the world in lung cancer for primary diagnosis, staging, restaging, evaluation of treatment response and radiotherapy (RT) planning (3). The maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) is widely recognized as an adequate imaging biomarker for the prognosis of lung cancer (4).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Morphologic and Metabolic Comparison of Treatment Responsiveness with 18Fludeoxyglucose-Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography According to Lung Cancer Type

Börksüz¹,

Erselcan²,

Hasbek³

et al. 2016

Mirt

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective:The aim of the present study was to evaluate the response to treatment by histopathologic type in patients with lung cancer and under follow-up with 18F-fluoro-2deoxy-glucose-positron emission tomography/computed tomography (18F-FDG PET/CT) imaging by using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) and European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) criteria that evaluate morphologic and metabolic parameters.Methods:On two separate (pre- and post-treatment) 18F-FDG PET/CT images, the longest dimension of primary tumor as well as of secondary lesions were measured and sum of these two measurements was recorded as the total dimension in 40 patients. PET parameters such as standardized uptake value (SUVmax), metabolic volume and total lesion glycolysis (TLG) were also recorded for these target lesions on two separate 18F-FDG PET/CT images. The percent (%) change was calculated for all these parameters. Morphologic evaluation was based on RECIST 1.1 and the metabolic evaluation was based on EORTC.Results:When evaluated before and after treatment, in spite of the statistically significant change (p<0.05) in SUVmax, the change was not significant in TLG, in the longest total size and in the longest size (p>0.05). In histopathologic typing, when we compare the post-treatment phase change with the treatment responses of RECIST 1.1 and EORTC criteria; for RECIST 1.1 in squamous cell lung cancer group, progression was observed in sixteen patients (57%), stability in seven patients (25%), partial response in five patients (18%); and for EORTC progression was detected in four patients (14%), stability in thirteen patients (47%), partial response in eleven patients (39%), in 12 of these patients an increase in stage (43%), in 4 of them a decrease in stage (14%), and in 12 of them stability in stage (43%) were determined. But in adenocancer patients (n=7), for RECIST 1.1, progression was determined in four patients (57%), stability in two patients (29%), partial response in one patient (14%); for EORTC, progression in one patient (14%), stability in four patients (57%), partial response in two patients (29%) were observed and in these patients, an increase in stage was detected in 3 of them (43%), while 4 of them remained stable. According to histopathologic diagnosis, between squamous cell cancer and adenocancer cases, no significant difference was determined in terms of SUVmax (p>0.05). Post-treatment SUVmax was significantly different in primary tumor but was not significantly different in nodal involvement and metastatic lesions for squamous cell carcinoma patients as compared to the pre-treatment SUVmax measurements. Similarly, there was no significant difference between primary tumor and nodal involvement for adenocarcinoma patients.Conclusion:Whether metabolic or morphologic changes are more accurate in evaluating treatment response in lung cancer remains unknown, and there is no gold standard diagnostic method on this issue yet. The most reliable results can only be achieved by ...

show abstract

Preface

Cited by 25 publications

References 0 publications

Radiation-induced liver disease as a mimic of liver metastases at serial PET/CT during neoadjuvant chemoradiation of distal esophageal cancer

Radiation-induced liver disease as a mimic of liver metastases at serial PET/CT during neoadjuvant chemoradiation of distal esophageal cancer

Use of Radiopharmaceuticals in Diagnostic Nuclear Medicine in the United States

Morphologic and Metabolic Comparison of Treatment Responsiveness with 18Fludeoxyglucose-Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography According to Lung Cancer Type

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About