Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Annals of Nuclear Medicine 8/2020

01-08-2020 | Hemorrhoids | Original Article

Physiological 18F-FDG uptake in the normal adult anal canal: evaluation by PET/CT

Authors: Yankel Sena, Shunro Matsumoto, Christopher Silman, Kenichiro Otsuka, Takashige Kiyota

Published in: Annals of Nuclear Medicine | Issue 8/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Objective

Despite their benefit for detecting primary tumors, data for normal 18F-fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose (FDG) uptake in the anal canal are insufficient. Here we used positron emission tomography–computed tomography (PET/CT) to determine the uptake of FDG in the normal adult anal canal (AC) and to evaluate its clinical significance compared with that of anal cancer.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective study of–PET/CT images in the anal region, of 201 consecutive patients without symptoms or pathology taken from January 2015 to August 2019, after excluding two patients (one each with Crohn’s disease and hemorrhoid). These patients were included in the normal group, and data of eight patients with anal cancer were collected from January 2011 to August 2019 for comparison. FDG uptake was quantitatively evaluated (compared with the maximum standardized uptake value [SUVmax] to the SUVmax values of liver and distal rectum) and qualitatively (compared with background) in early and delayed phases. Normal grade 3 uptake was qualitatively defined as FDG uptake higher than the surrounding muscles.

Results

In the normal group, mean anal canal SUVmax of early phase was: 2.26 (range 1.00–6.30), and delayed phase: 2.52 (range 1.00–8.80). Their ratios to liver SUVmax were early: 0.74 (range 0.24–2.25), and delayed: 0.81 (range 0.23–2.32); ratios to rectal SUVmax were early: 0.87 (range 0.30–1.89), and delayed: 0.90 (range 0.30–1.27). Qualitatively, 25 patients (15.4%) had normal grade 3 uptake during the early and delayed phases. In contrast, qualitative data showed that all patients with anal cancer exhibited high FDG uptake in the anal canal. The mean early- and delayed-phase values of SUVmax of the anal canal and anal cancer group were 11.09 (range 5.40–17.73) and 14.23 (range 6.70–22.85), respectively. There was a significant difference between the mean-early and -delayed anal SUVmax values of the normal grade 3 and anal cancer groups. Furthermore, the ratios to liver SUVmax were significantly different between the two groups.

Conclusions

PET/CT scans occasionally showed high FDG uptake in the anal canal of healthy adults. Comparing the SUVmax values of liver FDG uptake may help differentiate between normal tissue and anal cancer.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Amirian ES, Fickey PA, Scheurer ME, Chiao EY. Anal cancer incidence and survival: comparing the greater San-Francisco Bay area to other SEER cancer registries. PLoS ONE. 2013;8:e58919.CrossRef Amirian ES, Fickey PA, Scheurer ME, Chiao EY. Anal cancer incidence and survival: comparing the greater San-Francisco Bay area to other SEER cancer registries. PLoS ONE. 2013;8:e58919.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Agarwal A, Marcus C, Xiao J, Nene P, Kachnic LA, Subramaniam RM. FDG PET/CT in the management of colorectal and anal cancer. AJR. 2014;203:11091119.CrossRef Agarwal A, Marcus C, Xiao J, Nene P, Kachnic LA, Subramaniam RM. FDG PET/CT in the management of colorectal and anal cancer. AJR. 2014;203:11091119.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Koh DM, Dzik-jurasz A, O’neill B, et al. Pelvic phased-array MR imaging of anal carcinoma before and after chemoradiation. Br J Radiol. 2008;81:91–8.CrossRef Koh DM, Dzik-jurasz A, O’neill B, et al. Pelvic phased-array MR imaging of anal carcinoma before and after chemoradiation. Br J Radiol. 2008;81:91–8.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Wells IT, Fox BM. PET/CT in anal cancer—is it worth doing? Clin Radiol. 2011;67:535–40.CrossRef Wells IT, Fox BM. PET/CT in anal cancer—is it worth doing? Clin Radiol. 2011;67:535–40.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Shane EC, Perry WG, Barry AS, Farrokh D, Robert SM, James WF, Elisa HB, Xia W, Elliot A. FDG-PET/CT in the evaluation of anal carcinoma. Int J rad oncol. 2006;65:720–5.CrossRef Shane EC, Perry WG, Barry AS, Farrokh D, Robert SM, James WF, Elisa HB, Xia W, Elliot A. FDG-PET/CT in the evaluation of anal carcinoma. Int J rad oncol. 2006;65:720–5.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Vercellino L, Montravers F, Deparades V, Huchet V, Kerrou K, Bauer P, Touboul E, Talbot JN. Impact of FDG PET/CT in the staging and the follow-up of anal carcinoma. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2011;26:201–10.CrossRef Vercellino L, Montravers F, Deparades V, Huchet V, Kerrou K, Bauer P, Touboul E, Talbot JN. Impact of FDG PET/CT in the staging and the follow-up of anal carcinoma. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2011;26:201–10.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Kostakoglu L, Hardoff R, Mirtcheva R, et al. PET-CT fusion imaging in differentiating physiologic from pathologic FDG uptake. Radiographic. 2004;24:1411–31.CrossRef Kostakoglu L, Hardoff R, Mirtcheva R, et al. PET-CT fusion imaging in differentiating physiologic from pathologic FDG uptake. Radiographic. 2004;24:1411–31.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Blake MA, Singh A, Setty BN, Slattery J, Kalra M, Maher MM, Sahani DV, Fischman AJ, Mueller PR. Pearls and pitfalls in interpretation of abdominal and pelvic PET-CT. RadioGraphics. 2006;26:1335–533.CrossRef Blake MA, Singh A, Setty BN, Slattery J, Kalra M, Maher MM, Sahani DV, Fischman AJ, Mueller PR. Pearls and pitfalls in interpretation of abdominal and pelvic PET-CT. RadioGraphics. 2006;26:1335–533.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Saboo SS, Zukotynski K, Shinagare AB, Krajewski KM, Ramaiya N. Anal carcinoma: FDG PET/CT in staging, response evaluation, and follow up. Abdom Imaging. 2013;38:728–35.CrossRef Saboo SS, Zukotynski K, Shinagare AB, Krajewski KM, Ramaiya N. Anal carcinoma: FDG PET/CT in staging, response evaluation, and follow up. Abdom Imaging. 2013;38:728–35.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Tsai SC, Jeng LB, Yeh JJ, Lin CC, Chen JH, Lin WY, Kao CH. Findings of 2fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose positron emission tomography in hemorrhoids. Abdon Imaging. 2011;36:548–51.CrossRef Tsai SC, Jeng LB, Yeh JJ, Lin CC, Chen JH, Lin WY, Kao CH. Findings of 2fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose positron emission tomography in hemorrhoids. Abdon Imaging. 2011;36:548–51.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Malham M, Hess S, Nielsen RG, Husby S, Hoilund PF. PET/CT in the diagnosis of inflammatory bowel disease in pediatric patients: a review. J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;4:225–30. Malham M, Hess S, Nielsen RG, Husby S, Hoilund PF. PET/CT in the diagnosis of inflammatory bowel disease in pediatric patients: a review. J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;4:225–30.
12.
go back to reference Toriihara A, Yoshida K, Umehara I, Shibuya H. Normal variants of bowel FDG uptake in dual-time-point PET/CT imaging. Ann Nucl Med. 2011;25:173–8.CrossRef Toriihara A, Yoshida K, Umehara I, Shibuya H. Normal variants of bowel FDG uptake in dual-time-point PET/CT imaging. Ann Nucl Med. 2011;25:173–8.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Lee JM, Kim NK. Essential anatomy of the anorectum for colorectal surgeon focused on the gross anatomy and histologic findings. Ann Coloproctol. 2018;34:59–71.CrossRef Lee JM, Kim NK. Essential anatomy of the anorectum for colorectal surgeon focused on the gross anatomy and histologic findings. Ann Coloproctol. 2018;34:59–71.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Yasuda S, Takahashi W, Takagi S, Fujii H, Ide M, Shohtsu A. Factors influencing physiological FDG uptake in the intestine. Tokai J Exp Clin Med. 1998;23(5):241–4.PubMed Yasuda S, Takahashi W, Takagi S, Fujii H, Ide M, Shohtsu A. Factors influencing physiological FDG uptake in the intestine. Tokai J Exp Clin Med. 1998;23(5):241–4.PubMed
15.
go back to reference Abouzied MM, Crawford ES, Nabi HA. 18FFDG imaging: pitfalls and artifacts. J Nucl Med Technol. 2005;33:145–55.PubMed Abouzied MM, Crawford ES, Nabi HA. 18FFDG imaging: pitfalls and artifacts. J Nucl Med Technol. 2005;33:145–55.PubMed
16.
go back to reference Prabhakar HB, Sahani DV, Fischman AJ, Mueller PR, Blake MA. Bowel hot spots at PET-CT. Radiographics. 2007;27:145–59.CrossRef Prabhakar HB, Sahani DV, Fischman AJ, Mueller PR, Blake MA. Bowel hot spots at PET-CT. Radiographics. 2007;27:145–59.CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Zhang L, Liang M, Zhang Y, Hu S, Chen L, Li H, Wang J. The effects of hypotonic and isotonic negative contrast agent on gastrointestinal distention and physiological intake of 18F-FDG. Nucl Med Comm. 2015;36:180–6.CrossRef Zhang L, Liang M, Zhang Y, Hu S, Chen L, Li H, Wang J. The effects of hypotonic and isotonic negative contrast agent on gastrointestinal distention and physiological intake of 18F-FDG. Nucl Med Comm. 2015;36:180–6.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Naganawa S, Yoshikawa T, Yasaka K, Maeda E, Hayashi N, Abe O. Role of delayed-time-point imaging during abdominal and pelvic cancer screening using FDG-PET/CT in the general population. Medicine (Baltimore). 2017;96:e8832.CrossRef Naganawa S, Yoshikawa T, Yasaka K, Maeda E, Hayashi N, Abe O. Role of delayed-time-point imaging during abdominal and pelvic cancer screening using FDG-PET/CT in the general population. Medicine (Baltimore). 2017;96:e8832.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Kidd EA, Dehdashti F, Siegel BA, Grisby PW. Anal cancer maximum F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose uptake on positron emission tomography is correlated with prognosis. Radiother Oncol. 2010;95:288–91.CrossRef Kidd EA, Dehdashti F, Siegel BA, Grisby PW. Anal cancer maximum F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose uptake on positron emission tomography is correlated with prognosis. Radiother Oncol. 2010;95:288–91.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Physiological 18F-FDG uptake in the normal adult anal canal: evaluation by PET/CT
Authors
Yankel Sena
Shunro Matsumoto
Christopher Silman
Kenichiro Otsuka
Takashige Kiyota
Publication date
01-08-2020
Publisher
Springer Singapore
Published in
Annals of Nuclear Medicine / Issue 8/2020
Print ISSN: 0914-7187
Electronic ISSN: 1864-6433
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12149-020-01480-9

Other articles of this Issue 8/2020

Annals of Nuclear Medicine 8/2020 Go to the issue