Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 3/2017

01-09-2017 | Original Article

Difference in F-18 FDG Uptake After Esophagogastroduodenoscopy and Colonoscopy in Healthy Sedated Subjects

Authors: Jong-Ryool Oh, Ji-Hyoung Seo, Woo-Jin Chang, Seung-Il Bae, In-Wook Song, Jin-Gu Bong, Hye-Yeon Jeong, So-Young Park, Jeongyup Bae, Hyundae Yoon

Published in: Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging | Issue 3/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

We aimed to evaluate the difference in fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) uptake in sedated healthy subjects after they underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and colonoscopy procedures.

Methods

The endoscopy group (n = 29) included healthy subjects who underwent screening via F-18 FDG positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) after an EGD and/or colonoscopy under sedation on the same day. The control group (n = 35) included healthy subjects who underwent screening via PET/CT only. FDG uptake in the tongue, uvula, epiglottis, vocal cords, esophagus, stomach, duodenum, liver, cecum, colon, anus, and muscle were compared between the two groups.

Results

Maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) in the tongue, pharynx, larynx, and esophagus did not significantly differ between the endoscopy and control groups. In contrast, mean SUVmax in the whole stomach was 18 % higher in the endoscopy group than in the control group (SUVmax: 2.96 vs. 2.51, P = 0.010). In the lower gastrointestinal track, SUVmax from the cecum to the rectum was not significantly different between the two groups, whereas SUVmax in the anus was 20 % higher in the endoscopy group than in the control group (SUVmax: 4.21 vs. 3.50, P = 0.002). SUVmax in the liver and muscle was not significantly different between the two groups. Mean volume of the stomach and mean cross section of the colon was significantly higher in the endoscopy group than in the control group (stomach: 313.28 cm3 vs. 209.93 cm3, P < 0.001, colon: 8.82 cm2 vs. 5.98 cm2, P = 0.001).

Conclusions

EGD and colonoscopy under sedation does not lead to significant differences in SUVmax in most parts of the body. Only gastric FDG uptake in the EGD subjects and anal FDG uptake in the colonoscopy subjects was higher than uptake in those regions in the control subjects.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Boellaard R, O’Doherty MJ, Weber WA, et al. FDG PET and PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour PET imaging: version 1.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010;37:181–200.CrossRefPubMed Boellaard R, O’Doherty MJ, Weber WA, et al. FDG PET and PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour PET imaging: version 1.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010;37:181–200.CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Boellaard R, Oyen WJ, Hoekstra CJ, et al. The Netherlands protocol for standardisation and quantification of FDG whole body PET studies in multi-centre trials. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2008;35:2320–33.CrossRefPubMed Boellaard R, Oyen WJ, Hoekstra CJ, et al. The Netherlands protocol for standardisation and quantification of FDG whole body PET studies in multi-centre trials. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2008;35:2320–33.CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Bourguet P, Blanc-Vincent MP, Boneu A, et al. Summary of the Standards, Options and Recommendations for the use of positron emission tomography with 2-[18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose (FDP-PET scanning) in oncology (2002). Br J Cancer. 2003;89 Suppl 1:S84–91.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Bourguet P, Blanc-Vincent MP, Boneu A, et al. Summary of the Standards, Options and Recommendations for the use of positron emission tomography with 2-[18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose (FDP-PET scanning) in oncology (2002). Br J Cancer. 2003;89 Suppl 1:S84–91.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
4.
go back to reference Shankar LK, Hoffman JM, Bacharach S, et al. Consensus recommendations for the use of 18F-FDG PET as an indicator of therapeutic response in patients in National Cancer Institute Trials. J Nucl Med. 2006;47:1059–66.PubMed Shankar LK, Hoffman JM, Bacharach S, et al. Consensus recommendations for the use of 18F-FDG PET as an indicator of therapeutic response in patients in National Cancer Institute Trials. J Nucl Med. 2006;47:1059–66.PubMed
5.
go back to reference Surasi DS, Bhambhvani P, Baldwin JA, Almodovar SE, O’Malley JP. (1)(8)F-FDG PET and PET/CT patient preparation: a review of the literature. J Nucl Med Technol. 2014;42:5–13.CrossRefPubMed Surasi DS, Bhambhvani P, Baldwin JA, Almodovar SE, O’Malley JP. (1)(8)F-FDG PET and PET/CT patient preparation: a review of the literature. J Nucl Med Technol. 2014;42:5–13.CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Oh JR, Song HC, Chong A, et al. Impact of medication discontinuation on increased intestinal FDG accumulation in diabetic patients treated with metformin. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;195:1404–10.CrossRefPubMed Oh JR, Song HC, Chong A, et al. Impact of medication discontinuation on increased intestinal FDG accumulation in diabetic patients treated with metformin. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;195:1404–10.CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Young B, O’Dowd G, Woodford P. Wheater’s functional histology : a text and colour atlas. Sixth ed. 2014:252. Young B, O’Dowd G, Woodford P. Wheater’s functional histology : a text and colour atlas. Sixth ed. 2014:252.
8.
go back to reference Koga H, Sasaki M, Kuwabara Y, et al. An analysis of the physiological FDG uptake pattern in the stomach. Ann Nucl Med. 2003;17:733–8.CrossRefPubMed Koga H, Sasaki M, Kuwabara Y, et al. An analysis of the physiological FDG uptake pattern in the stomach. Ann Nucl Med. 2003;17:733–8.CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Shreve PD, Anzai Y, Wahl RL. Pitfalls in oncologic diagnosis with FDG PET imaging: physiologic and benign variants. Radiographics. 1999;19:61–77. quiz 150–151.CrossRefPubMed Shreve PD, Anzai Y, Wahl RL. Pitfalls in oncologic diagnosis with FDG PET imaging: physiologic and benign variants. Radiographics. 1999;19:61–77. quiz 150–151.CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Wang Y, Chiu E, Rosenberg J, Gambhir SS. Standardized uptake value atlas: characterization of physiological 2-deoxy-2-[18F]fluoro-D-glucose uptake in normal tissues. Mol Imaging Biol. 2007;9:83–90.CrossRefPubMed Wang Y, Chiu E, Rosenberg J, Gambhir SS. Standardized uptake value atlas: characterization of physiological 2-deoxy-2-[18F]fluoro-D-glucose uptake in normal tissues. Mol Imaging Biol. 2007;9:83–90.CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Le Roux PY, Duong CP, Cabalag CS, Parameswaran BK, Callahan J, Hicks RJ. Incremental diagnostic utility of gastric distension FDG PET/CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016;43:644–53.CrossRefPubMed Le Roux PY, Duong CP, Cabalag CS, Parameswaran BK, Callahan J, Hicks RJ. Incremental diagnostic utility of gastric distension FDG PET/CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016;43:644–53.CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Yun M, Choi HS, Yoo E, Bong JK, Ryu YH, Lee JD. The role of gastric distention in differentiating recurrent tumor from physiologic uptake in the remnant stomach on 18F-FDG PET. J Nucl Med. 2005;46:953–7.PubMed Yun M, Choi HS, Yoo E, Bong JK, Ryu YH, Lee JD. The role of gastric distention in differentiating recurrent tumor from physiologic uptake in the remnant stomach on 18F-FDG PET. J Nucl Med. 2005;46:953–7.PubMed
Metadata
Title
Difference in F-18 FDG Uptake After Esophagogastroduodenoscopy and Colonoscopy in Healthy Sedated Subjects
Authors
Jong-Ryool Oh
Ji-Hyoung Seo
Woo-Jin Chang
Seung-Il Bae
In-Wook Song
Jin-Gu Bong
Hye-Yeon Jeong
So-Young Park
Jeongyup Bae
Hyundae Yoon
Publication date
01-09-2017
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging / Issue 3/2017
Print ISSN: 1869-3474
Electronic ISSN: 1869-3482
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13139-016-0460-7

Other articles of this Issue 3/2017

Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 3/2017 Go to the issue