Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Annals of Nuclear Medicine
Published in: Annals of Nuclear Medicine 11/2019

01-11-2019 | Positron Emission Tomography | Original Article

Effect of drugs containing glucose on FDG-PET image quality

Authors: Shozo Okamoto, Takuya Toyonaga, Katsura Matsuzawa, Mikiya Aizawa, Toshiaki Mouri, Youko Suzuki, Noriyuki Miyamoto, Masayuki Inubushi

Published in: Annals of Nuclear Medicine | Issue 11/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Objective

Patients often take prescription drugs for various diseases or complications that contain several grams of glucose. However, the effect of these glucose-containing medications on the image quality of F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) has not been established. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of taking drugs containing glucose before an FDG-PET on the PET image quality.

Methods

In total, 736 continuously enrolled patients who underwent FDG-PET were retrospectively analysed. We investigated the total glucose content in the prescription drugs that each patient took during fasting before the FDG injection, and we divided the patients into three groups according to the amount of glucose in their drugs: group A did not take any drugs containing glucose, group B took sugar-coated tablets (containing trace amounts of glucose), and group C took prescription drugs with glucose an ingredient. Visual scores and quantitative variables with standard uptake value (SUV) for the brain, myocardium, blood, liver, and muscle in the FDG-PET images were analysed and statistically compared across the three groups.

Results

In group C, the amount of glucose was 0.63 ± 0.86 g (maximum 4.9 g). For the visual scores, there were no significant differences among the three groups. For the quantitative variables, significant differences were present in the brain SUVmax, muscle SUVmean, brain/blood ratio, brain/liver ratio, and brain/muscle ratio. However, a multivariate analysis showed that the group indicator was not significantly associated with any of the quantitative variables. On the other hand, blood glucose was significantly associated with the visual and quantitative variables. In group C, the correlation coefficient between the amount of glucose and the blood glucose level, the visual scores and the quantitative variables were in the range of − 0.121 to 0.100 and were not significant.

Conclusions

There were no significant differences between glucose-containing medications before FDG-PET and the visual scores and quantitative variables for FDG-PET image. Several grams of glucose in drugs before FDG-PET can be ignored.
Literature
1.
Chen J, Cheong JH, Yun MJ, Kim J, Lim JS, Hyung WJ, et al. Improvement in preoperative staging of gastric adenocarcinoma with positron emission tomography. Cancer. 2005;103:2383–90.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Anderson CD, Rice MH, Pinson CW, Chapman WC, Chari RS, Delbeke D, et al. Fluorodeoxyglucose PET imaging in the evaluation of gallbladder carcinoma and cholangiocarcinoma. J Gastrointest Surg. 2004;8:90–7.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Wakabayashi H, Akamoto S, Yachida S, Okano K, Izuishi K, Nishiyama Y, et al. Significance of fluorodeoxyglucose PET imaging in the diagnosis of malignancies in patients with biliary stricture. EJSO. 2005;31:1175–9.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Kluge R, Schmidt F, Caca K, Barthel H, Hesse S, Georgi P, et al. Positron emission tomography with [18F]Fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose for diagnosis and staging of bile duct cancer. Hepatology. 2001;33:1029–35.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Böhm B, Voth M, Geoghegan J, Hellfritzsch H, Petrovich A, Scheele J, et al. Impact of positron emission tomography on strategy in liver resection for primary and secondary liver tumors. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2004;130:266–72.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Hatano E, Ikai I, Higashi T, Teramukai S, Torizuka T, Saga T, et al. Preoperative positron emission tomography withfluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose is predictive of prognosis in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma after resection. World J Surg. 2006;30:1736–41.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Shvarts O, Han KR, Seltzer M, Pantuck AJ, Belldegrun AS. Positron emission tomography in urologic oncology. Cancer Control. 2002;9:335–42.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Hillner BE, Siegel BA, Liu D, Shields AF, Gareen IF, Hanna L, et al. Impact of positron emission tomography/computed tomography and positron emission tomography (PET) alone on expected management of patients with cancer: Initial results from the national oncologic PET registry. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:2155–61.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Kaneta T, Takahashi S, Fukuda H, Arisaka Y, Oriuchi N, Hayashi T, et al. Clinical significance of performing 18F-FDG PET on patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumors: a summary of a Japanese multicenter study. Ann Nucl Med. 2009;23:459–64.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Nakamoto Y, Togashi K, Kaneta T, Fukuda H, Nakajima K, Kitajima K, et al. Clinical value of whole-body FDG-PET for recurrent gastric cancer: a multicenter study. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2009;39:297–302.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Tateishi U, Hosono A, Makimoto A, Nakamoto Y, Kaneta T, Fukuda H, et al. Comparative study of FDG PET/CT and conventional imaging in the staging of rhabdomyosarcoma. Ann Nucl Med. 2009;23:155–61.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Kitajima K, Murakami K, Kanegae K, Tamaki N, Kaneta T, Fukuda H, et al. Clinical impact of whole body FDG-PET for recurrent biliary cancer: a multicenter study. Ann Nucl Med. 2009;23:709–15.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Delbeke D, Coleman RE, Guiberteau MJ, Brown ML, Royal HD, Siegel BA, et al. Procedure guideline for tumor imaging with 18F-FDG PET/CT 1.0. J Nucl Med. 2006;47:885–95.PubMed
14.
Boellaard R, Delgado-Bolton R, Oyen WJ, Giammarile F, Tatsch K, Eschner W, et al. European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM). FDG PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour imaging: version 2.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015;42:328–54.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Hosono M, Saga T, Ito K, Kumita S, Sasaki M, Senda M, et al. Guidelines for clinical use of FDG PET, PET/CT 2012. Jpn J Nucl Med (Kaku Igaku). 2012;49:391–401.
16.
Peiro Valgañon V, Alonso Farto JC. Normal blood glucose level and (18)F-FDG PET/CT. Rev Esp Med Nucl Imagen Mol. 2012;31:210–2.PubMed
17.
Panin VY, Kehren F, Michel C, Casey M. Fully 3-D PET reconstruction with system matrix derived from point source measurements. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2006;25:907–21.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Claeys J, Mertens K, D'Asseler Y, Goethals I. Normoglycemic plasma glucose levels affect F-18 FDG uptake in the brain. Ann Nucl Med. 2010;24:501–5.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Kaneta T, Hakamatsuka T, Takanami K, Yamada T, Takase K, Sato A, et al. Evaluation of the relationship between physiological FDG uptake in the heart and age, blood glucose level, fasting period, and hospitalization. Ann Nucl Med. 2006;20:203–8.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Malladi A, Viner M, Jackson T, Mercier G, Subramaniam RM. PET/CT mediastinal and liver FDG uptake: effects of biological and procedural factors. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2013;57:169–75.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Keramida G, Dizdarevic S, Bush J, Peters AM. Quantification of tumour (18) F-FDG uptake: normalise to blood glucose or scale to liver uptake? Eur Radiol. 2015;25:2701–8.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Lindholm H, Brolin F, Jonsson C, Jacobsson H. The relation between the blood glucose level and the FDG uptake of tissues at normal PET examinations. EJNMMI Res. 2013;3:50.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
23.
Sprinz C, Altmayer S, Zanon M, Watte G, Irion K, Marchiori E, et al. Effects of blood glucose level on 18F-FDG uptake for PET/CT in normal organs: a systematic review. PLoS ONE. 2018;13:0193140.CrossRef
24.
Rabkin Z, Israel O, Keidar Z. Do hyperglycemia and diabetes affect the incidence of false-negative 18F-FDG PET/CT studies in patients evaluated for infection or inflammation and cancer? A Comparative analysis. J Nucl Med. 2010;51:1015–20.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Effect of drugs containing glucose on FDG-PET image quality
Authors
Shozo Okamoto
Takuya Toyonaga
Katsura Matsuzawa
Mikiya Aizawa
Toshiaki Mouri
Youko Suzuki
Noriyuki Miyamoto
Masayuki Inubushi
Publication date
01-11-2019
Publisher
Springer Singapore
Published in
Annals of Nuclear Medicine / Issue 11/2019
Print ISSN: 0914-7187
Electronic ISSN: 1864-6433
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12149-019-01394-1

Other articles of this Issue 11/2019

Annals of Nuclear Medicine 11/2019 Go to the issue

Original Article

A pitfall of white matter reference regions used in [18F] florbetapir PET: a consideration of kinetics

Special Article

Manual on the proper use of yttrium-90-labeled anti-P-cadherin antibody injection for radionuclide therapy in clinical trials

Original Article

Computer-aided detection of bone metastasis in bone scintigraphy images using parallelepiped classification method

Original Article

In vivo preclinical PET/CT imaging of carbon-11-labeled aminoglycerol probe for the diagnosis of liver fibrosis

Original Article

Searching for diagnostic properties of novel fluorine-18-labeled d-allose

Original Article

Impact of decompressive craniectomy on brain perfusion scintigraphy as an ancillary test for brain death diagnosis