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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |