Cargando…

Differences between [(18)F]FLT and [(18)F]FDG Uptake in PET/CT Imaging in CC Depend on Vaginal Bacteriology

This study aims to investigate if vaginal bacteriology obtained prior to treatment influences the 3′-deoxy-3 18F-fluorothymidine (FLT) [(18)F]FLT and 2-deoxy-2-[(18)F]fluoro-d-glucose (2-[(18)F]FDG) [(18)F]FDG parameters in positron emission tomography (PET/CT) in cervical cancer (CC) patients. Meth...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Burchardt, Ewa, Warenczak-Florczak, Zaneta, Cegła, Paulina, Piotrowski, Adam, Cybulski, Zefiryn, Burchardt, Wojciech, Roszak, Andrzej, Cholewiński, Witold
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8774914/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35054237
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12010070
_version_ 1784636457389916160
author Burchardt, Ewa
Warenczak-Florczak, Zaneta
Cegła, Paulina
Piotrowski, Adam
Cybulski, Zefiryn
Burchardt, Wojciech
Roszak, Andrzej
Cholewiński, Witold
author_facet Burchardt, Ewa
Warenczak-Florczak, Zaneta
Cegła, Paulina
Piotrowski, Adam
Cybulski, Zefiryn
Burchardt, Wojciech
Roszak, Andrzej
Cholewiński, Witold
author_sort Burchardt, Ewa
collection PubMed
description This study aims to investigate if vaginal bacteriology obtained prior to treatment influences the 3′-deoxy-3 18F-fluorothymidine (FLT) [(18)F]FLT and 2-deoxy-2-[(18)F]fluoro-d-glucose (2-[(18)F]FDG) [(18)F]FDG parameters in positron emission tomography (PET/CT) in cervical cancer (CC) patients. Methods: Retrospective analysis was performed on 39 women with locally advanced histologically confirmed cervical cancer who underwent dual tracer PET/CT examinations. The [(18)F]FLT and [(18)F]FDG PET parameters in the primary tumor, including SUVmax, SUVmean, MTV, heterogeneity, before radiotherapy (RT) were analyzed, depending on the bacteriology. The p-values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Results: In the vaginal and/or cervical smears, there were 27 (79.4%) positive results. In seven (20.6%) cases, no opportunistic pathogen growth was observed (No Bacteria Group). In positive bacteriology, eleven (32%) Gram-negative bacilli (Bacteria group 2) and fifteen (44%) Gram-positive bacteria (Bacteria group 1) were detected. Five patients with unknown results were excluded from the analysis. Data analysis shows a statistically significant difference between the SUV(max), and SUV(min) values for three independent groups for the [(18)F]FLT. Conclusions: The lowest values of SUV(max) and SUV(min) for [(18)F]FLT are registered in Gram-negative bacteria, higher are in Gram-positive, and the absence of bacteria causes the highest [(18)F]FLT values.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8774914
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-87749142022-01-21 Differences between [(18)F]FLT and [(18)F]FDG Uptake in PET/CT Imaging in CC Depend on Vaginal Bacteriology Burchardt, Ewa Warenczak-Florczak, Zaneta Cegła, Paulina Piotrowski, Adam Cybulski, Zefiryn Burchardt, Wojciech Roszak, Andrzej Cholewiński, Witold Diagnostics (Basel) Article This study aims to investigate if vaginal bacteriology obtained prior to treatment influences the 3′-deoxy-3 18F-fluorothymidine (FLT) [(18)F]FLT and 2-deoxy-2-[(18)F]fluoro-d-glucose (2-[(18)F]FDG) [(18)F]FDG parameters in positron emission tomography (PET/CT) in cervical cancer (CC) patients. Methods: Retrospective analysis was performed on 39 women with locally advanced histologically confirmed cervical cancer who underwent dual tracer PET/CT examinations. The [(18)F]FLT and [(18)F]FDG PET parameters in the primary tumor, including SUVmax, SUVmean, MTV, heterogeneity, before radiotherapy (RT) were analyzed, depending on the bacteriology. The p-values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Results: In the vaginal and/or cervical smears, there were 27 (79.4%) positive results. In seven (20.6%) cases, no opportunistic pathogen growth was observed (No Bacteria Group). In positive bacteriology, eleven (32%) Gram-negative bacilli (Bacteria group 2) and fifteen (44%) Gram-positive bacteria (Bacteria group 1) were detected. Five patients with unknown results were excluded from the analysis. Data analysis shows a statistically significant difference between the SUV(max), and SUV(min) values for three independent groups for the [(18)F]FLT. Conclusions: The lowest values of SUV(max) and SUV(min) for [(18)F]FLT are registered in Gram-negative bacteria, higher are in Gram-positive, and the absence of bacteria causes the highest [(18)F]FLT values. MDPI 2021-12-29 /pmc/articles/PMC8774914/ /pubmed/35054237 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12010070 Text en © 2021 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/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 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Burchardt, Ewa
Warenczak-Florczak, Zaneta
Cegła, Paulina
Piotrowski, Adam
Cybulski, Zefiryn
Burchardt, Wojciech
Roszak, Andrzej
Cholewiński, Witold
Differences between [(18)F]FLT and [(18)F]FDG Uptake in PET/CT Imaging in CC Depend on Vaginal Bacteriology
title Differences between [(18)F]FLT and [(18)F]FDG Uptake in PET/CT Imaging in CC Depend on Vaginal Bacteriology
title_full Differences between [(18)F]FLT and [(18)F]FDG Uptake in PET/CT Imaging in CC Depend on Vaginal Bacteriology
title_fullStr Differences between [(18)F]FLT and [(18)F]FDG Uptake in PET/CT Imaging in CC Depend on Vaginal Bacteriology
title_full_unstemmed Differences between [(18)F]FLT and [(18)F]FDG Uptake in PET/CT Imaging in CC Depend on Vaginal Bacteriology
title_short Differences between [(18)F]FLT and [(18)F]FDG Uptake in PET/CT Imaging in CC Depend on Vaginal Bacteriology
title_sort differences between [(18)f]flt and [(18)f]fdg uptake in pet/ct imaging in cc depend on vaginal bacteriology
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8774914/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35054237
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12010070
work_keys_str_mv AT burchardtewa differencesbetween18ffltand18ffdguptakeinpetctimaginginccdependonvaginalbacteriology
AT warenczakflorczakzaneta differencesbetween18ffltand18ffdguptakeinpetctimaginginccdependonvaginalbacteriology
AT cegłapaulina differencesbetween18ffltand18ffdguptakeinpetctimaginginccdependonvaginalbacteriology
AT piotrowskiadam differencesbetween18ffltand18ffdguptakeinpetctimaginginccdependonvaginalbacteriology
AT cybulskizefiryn differencesbetween18ffltand18ffdguptakeinpetctimaginginccdependonvaginalbacteriology
AT burchardtwojciech differencesbetween18ffltand18ffdguptakeinpetctimaginginccdependonvaginalbacteriology
AT roszakandrzej differencesbetween18ffltand18ffdguptakeinpetctimaginginccdependonvaginalbacteriology
AT cholewinskiwitold differencesbetween18ffltand18ffdguptakeinpetctimaginginccdependonvaginalbacteriology