Dynamic FDG PET/CT for differentiating focal pelvic uptake in patients with gynecological cancer
Rattachement africain : jp. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
This study aimed to evaluate the ability of serial whole-body dynamic PET/CT to differentiate physiological from abnormal 18 F-FDG uptake in the abdomen and pelvis of gynecological cancer patients. We conducted a retrospective study of 61 18 F-FDG PET/CT examinations for suspected gynecological malignancies or metastases between March 2018 and January 2020. Our protocol included four-phase dynamic whole-body scans. High-uptake foci with SUVmax > 2.5 in the abdominopelvic region caudal to the renal portal were picked up and visually evaluated as “changed” (disappeared during any phase or morphological changes in more than half of the foci) or “unchanged” in motion on the serial dynamic images. Focal 18 F-FDG uptake was observed in 84 foci. Of the 58 foci determined pathologically or clinically to have pathological uptake, no change was observed on serial dynamic imaging in 54 foci (sensitivity, 93%). Of the 26 foci of physiological uptake, temporal changes in uptake were observed in 20 foci using dynamic imaging (specificity, 77%). The positive and negative predictive values were 90% and 83%, respectively, with an accuracy of 88%. Dynamic whole-body 18 F-FDG PET/CT imaging allows for differentiation between pathological and physiological uptake in the abdominopelvic region of patients with gynecological cancer.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Dynamic FDG PET/CT for differentiating focal pelvic uptake in patients with gynecological cancer
- Date Crossref
- 27/11/2024
- Éditeur
- Springer Science and Business Media LLC
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Les institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.