Cargando…

Image Quality and Interpretation of [(18)F]-FES-PET: Is There any Effect of Food Intake?

Background: High physiological 16α-[(18)F]-fluoro-17β-estradiol ([(18)F]-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 [(18)F]-FES-PET sca...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Boers, Jorianne, Giatagana, Katerina, Schröder, Carolina P., Hospers, Geke A.P., de Vries, Erik F.J., Glaudemans, Andor W.J.M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7600120/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32993099
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics10100756
_version_ 1783603057977720832
author Boers, Jorianne
Giatagana, Katerina
Schröder, Carolina P.
Hospers, Geke A.P.
de Vries, Erik F.J.
Glaudemans, Andor W.J.M.
author_facet Boers, Jorianne
Giatagana, Katerina
Schröder, Carolina P.
Hospers, Geke A.P.
de Vries, Erik F.J.
Glaudemans, Andor W.J.M.
author_sort Boers, Jorianne
collection PubMed
description Background: High physiological 16α-[(18)F]-fluoro-17β-estradiol ([(18)F]-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 [(18)F]-FES-PET scans. Methods: Breast cancer patients referred for [(18)F]-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 [(18)F]-FES uptake, expressed as mean standardized uptake value (SUV(mean)), in the abdomen between groups. Results: A significant difference in [(18)F]-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 [(18)F]-FES uptake; further reduction through a normal diet was not seen. A prospective study is warranted to confirm this finding.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7600120
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-76001202020-11-01 Image Quality and Interpretation of [(18)F]-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. Diagnostics (Basel) Article Background: High physiological 16α-[(18)F]-fluoro-17β-estradiol ([(18)F]-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 [(18)F]-FES-PET scans. Methods: Breast cancer patients referred for [(18)F]-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 [(18)F]-FES uptake, expressed as mean standardized uptake value (SUV(mean)), in the abdomen between groups. Results: A significant difference in [(18)F]-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 [(18)F]-FES uptake; further reduction through a normal diet was not seen. A prospective study is warranted to confirm this finding. MDPI 2020-09-26 /pmc/articles/PMC7600120/ /pubmed/32993099 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics10100756 Text en © 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Boers, Jorianne
Giatagana, Katerina
Schröder, Carolina P.
Hospers, Geke A.P.
de Vries, Erik F.J.
Glaudemans, Andor W.J.M.
Image Quality and Interpretation of [(18)F]-FES-PET: Is There any Effect of Food Intake?
title Image Quality and Interpretation of [(18)F]-FES-PET: Is There any Effect of Food Intake?
title_full Image Quality and Interpretation of [(18)F]-FES-PET: Is There any Effect of Food Intake?
title_fullStr Image Quality and Interpretation of [(18)F]-FES-PET: Is There any Effect of Food Intake?
title_full_unstemmed Image Quality and Interpretation of [(18)F]-FES-PET: Is There any Effect of Food Intake?
title_short Image Quality and Interpretation of [(18)F]-FES-PET: Is There any Effect of Food Intake?
title_sort image quality and interpretation of [(18)f]-fes-pet: is there any effect of food intake?
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7600120/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32993099
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics10100756
work_keys_str_mv AT boersjorianne imagequalityandinterpretationof18ffespetisthereanyeffectoffoodintake
AT giataganakaterina imagequalityandinterpretationof18ffespetisthereanyeffectoffoodintake
AT schrodercarolinap imagequalityandinterpretationof18ffespetisthereanyeffectoffoodintake
AT hospersgekeap imagequalityandinterpretationof18ffespetisthereanyeffectoffoodintake
AT devrieserikfj imagequalityandinterpretationof18ffespetisthereanyeffectoffoodintake
AT glaudemansandorwjm imagequalityandinterpretationof18ffespetisthereanyeffectoffoodintake