Top

European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging

Published in:

01-01-2022 | Lymphoma | Guidelines

EANM procedure guidelines for brain PET imaging using [¹⁸F]FDG, version 3

Authors: Eric Guedj, Andrea Varrone, Ronald Boellaard, Nathalie L. Albert, Henryk Barthel, Bart van Berckel, Matthias Brendel, Diego Cecchin, Ozgul Ekmekcioglu, Valentina Garibotto, Adriaan A. Lammertsma, Ian Law, Iván Peñuelas, Franck Semah, Tatjana Traub-Weidinger, Elsmarieke van de Giessen, Donatienne Van Weehaeghe, Silvia Morbelli

Published in: European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging | Issue 2/2022

Abstract

The present procedural guidelines summarize the current views of the EANM Neuro-Imaging Committee (NIC). The purpose of these guidelines is to assist nuclear medicine practitioners in making recommendations, performing, interpreting, and reporting results of [¹⁸F]FDG-PET imaging of the brain. The aim is to help achieve a high-quality standard of [¹⁸F]FDG brain imaging and to further increase the diagnostic impact of this technique in neurological, neurosurgical, and psychiatric practice. The present document replaces a former version of the guidelines that have been published in 2009. These new guidelines include an update in the light of advances in PET technology such as the introduction of digital PET and hybrid PET/MR systems, advances in individual PET semiquantitative analysis, and current broadening clinical indications (e.g., for encephalitis and brain lymphoma). Further insight has also become available about hyperglycemia effects in patients who undergo brain [¹⁸F]FDG-PET. Accordingly, the patient preparation procedure has been updated. Finally, most typical brain patterns of metabolic changes are summarized for neurodegenerative diseases. The present guidelines are specifically intended to present information related to the European practice. The information provided should be taken in the context of local conditions and regulations.

Zimmer ER, Parent MJ, Souza DG, Leuzy A, Lecrux C, Kim HI, et al. [(18)F]FDG PET signal is driven by astroglial glutamate transport. Nat Neurosci. 2017;20:393–5. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.4492.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Sweeney MD, Montagne A, Sagare AP, Nation DA, Schneider LS, Chui HC, et al. Vascular dysfunction-the disregarded partner of Alzheimer's disease. Alzheimers Dement. 2019;15:158–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jalz.2018.07.222.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Xiang X, Wind K, Wiedemann T, Blume T, Shi Y, Briel N, et al. Microglial activation states drive glucose uptake and FDG-PET alterations in neurodegenerative diseases. Sci Transl Med. 2021;13:eabe5640. https://doi.org/10.1126/scitranslmed.abe5640.

Verger A, Lagarde S, Maillard L, Bartolomei F, Guedj E. Brain molecular imaging in pharmacoresistant focal epilepsy: current practice and perspectives. Rev Neurol. 2018;174:16–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neurol.2017.05.001.CrossRefPubMed

Varrone A, Asenbaum S, Vander Borght T, Booij J, Nobili F, Någren K, et al. EANM procedure guidelines for PET brain imaging using [18F]FDG, version 2. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2009;36:2103–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-009-1264-0.CrossRefPubMed

Nobili F, Arbizu J, Bouwman F, Drzezga A, Agosta F, Nestor P, et al. European association of nuclear medicine and european academy of neurology recommendations for the use of brain. Eur J Neurol. 2018;25:1201–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/ene.13728.CrossRefPubMed

Ortner MM. The use of (18)F-FDG PET in the diagnostic workup of Alzheimer's dementia. Methods Mol Biol. 1750;2018:213–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-7704-8_14.CrossRef

Endres D, Rauer S, Kern W, Venhoff N, Maier SJ, Runge K, et al. Psychiatric presentation of anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis. Front Neurol. 2019;10:1086. https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2019.01086.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Bordonne M, Chawki MB, Doyen M, Kas A, Guedj E, Tyvaert L, et al. Brain (18)F-FDG PET for the diagnosis of autoimmune encephalitis: a systematic review and a meta-analysis. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-021-05299-y.

10.

Jack CR, Bennett DA, Blennow K, Carrillo MC, Dunn B, Haeberlein SB, et al. NIA-AA research framework: toward a biological definition of Alzheimer's disease. Alzheimers Dement. 2018;14:535–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jalz.2018.02.018.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

11.

Tan MS, Ji X, Li JQ, Xu W, Wang HF, Tan CC, et al. Longitudinal trajectories of Alzheimer's ATN biomarkers in elderly persons without dementia. Alzheimers Res Ther. 2020;12:55. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13195-020-00621-6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

12.

Ou YN, Xu W, Li JQ, Guo Y, Cui M, Chen KL, et al. FDG-PET as an independent biomarker for Alzheimer's biological diagnosis: a longitudinal study. Alzheimers Res Ther. 2019;11:57. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13195-019-0512-1.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

13.

Caroli A, Prestia A, Galluzzi S, Ferrari C, van der Flier WM, Ossenkoppele R, et al. Mild cognitive impairment with suspected nonamyloid pathology (SNAP): prediction of progression. Neurology. 2015;84:508–15. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000001209.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

14.

Iaccarino L, Sala A, Perani D. Initiative AsDN. Predicting long-term clinical stability in amyloid-positive subjects by FDG-PET. Ann Clin Transl Neurol. 2019;6:1113–20. https://doi.org/10.1002/acn3.782.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

15.

Chételat G, Arbizu J, Barthel H, Garibotto V, Law I, Morbelli S, et al. Amyloid-PET and (18)F-FDG-PET in the diagnostic investigation of Alzheimer's disease and other dementias. Lancet Neurol. 2020;19:951–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1474-4422(20)30314-8.CrossRefPubMed

16.

Nobili F, Festari C, Altomare D, Agosta F, Orini S, Van Laere K, et al. Automated assessment of FDG-PET for differential diagnosis in patients with neurodegenerative disorders. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018;45:1557–66. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-018-4030-3.CrossRefPubMed

17.

Gjerum L, Frederiksen KS, Henriksen OM, Law I, Anderberg L, Andersen BB, et al. A visual rating scale for cingulate island sign on 18F-FDG-PET to differentiate dementia with Lewy bodies and Alzheimer's disease. J Neurol Sci. 2020;410:116645. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jns.2019.116645.CrossRefPubMed

18.

Herholz K, Salmon E, Perani D, Baron JC, Holthoff V, Frölich L, et al. Discrimination between Alzheimer dementia and controls by automated analysis of multicenter FDG PET. Neuroimage. 2002;17:302–16. https://doi.org/10.1006/nimg.2002.1208.CrossRefPubMed

19.

Mosconi L, Tsui WH, Herholz K, Pupi A, Drzezga A, Lucignani G, et al. Multicenter standardized 18F-FDG PET diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment, Alzheimer's disease, and other dementias. J Nucl Med. 2008;49:390–8. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.107.045385.CrossRefPubMed

20.

Garibotto V, Herholz K, Boccardi M, Picco A, Varrone A, Nordberg A, et al. Clinical validity of brain fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography as a biomarker for Alzheimer's disease in the context of a structured 5-phase development framework. Neurobiol Aging. 2017;52:183–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2016.03.033.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Chételat G, Arbizu J, Barthel H, Garibotto V, Lammertsma AA, Law I, et al. Finding our way through the labyrinth of dementia biomarkers. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2021;48:2320–4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-021-05301-7.CrossRefPubMed

22.

Singh TD, Josephs KA, Machulda MM, Drubach DA, Apostolova LG, Lowe VJ, et al. Clinical, FDG and amyloid PET imaging in posterior cortical atrophy. J Neurol. 2015;262:1483–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00415-015-7732-5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

23.

Whitwell JL, Graff-Radford J, Singh TD, Drubach DA, Senjem ML, Spychalla AJ, et al. F-FDG PET in posterior cortical atrophy and dementia with lewy bodies. J Nucl Med. 2017;58:632–8. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.116.179903.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

24.

Migliaccio R, Agosta F, Basaia S, Cividini C, Habert MO, Kas A, et al. Functional brain connectome in posterior cortical atrophy. Neuroimage Clin. 2020;25:102100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nicl.2019.102100.CrossRefPubMed

25.

Bouwman F, Orini S, Gandolfo F, Altomare D, Festari C, Agosta F, et al. Diagnostic utility of FDG-PET in the differential diagnosis between different forms of primary progressive aphasia. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018;45:1526–33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-018-4034-z.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

26.

Salat DH, Robinson ME, Miller DR, Clark DC, McGlinchey RE. Neuroimaging of deployment-associated traumatic brain injury (TBI) with a focus on mild TBI (mTBI) since 2009. Brain Inj. 2017;31:1204–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699052.2017.1327672.CrossRefPubMed

27.

Townley RA, Botha H, Graff-Radford J, Boeve BF, Petersen RC, Senjem ML, et al. F-FDG PET-CT pattern in idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus. Neuroimage Clin. 2018;18:897–902. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nicl.2018.02.031.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

28.

Videbech P. PET measurements of brain glucose metabolism and blood flow in major depressive disorder: a critical review. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2000;101:11–20. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0447.2000.101001011.x.CrossRefPubMed

29.

Kimbrell TA, Ketter TA, George MS, Little JT, Benson BE, Willis MW, et al. Regional cerebral glucose utilization in patients with a range of severities of unipolar depression. Biol Psychiatry. 2002;51:237–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0006-3223(01)01216-1.CrossRefPubMed

30.

Kennedy SH, Evans KR, Krüger S, Mayberg HS, Meyer JH, McCann S, et al. Changes in regional brain glucose metabolism measured with positron emission tomography after paroxetine treatment of major depression. Am J Psychiatry. 2001;158:899–905. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.158.6.899.CrossRefPubMed

31.

Silverman DH, Small GW, Chang CY, Lu CS, Kung De Aburto MA. Chen W, et al. positron emission tomography in evaluation of dementia: regional brain metabolism and long-term outcome. JAMA. 2001;286:2120–7. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.286.17.2120.CrossRefPubMed

32.

Verger A, Grimaldi S, Ribeiro MJ, Frismand S, Guedj E. SPECT/PET molecular imaging for parkinsonism: a fast-developing field. Ann Neurol. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1002/ana.26187.

33.

Walker Z, Gandolfo F, Orini S, Garibotto V, Agosta F, Arbizu J, et al. Clinical utility of FDG PET in Parkinson's disease and atypical parkinsonism associated with dementia. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018;45:1534–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-018-4031-2.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

34.

Whitwell JL, Höglinger GU, Antonini A, Bordelon Y, Boxer AL, Colosimo C, et al. Radiological biomarkers for diagnosis in PSP: where are we and where do we need to be? Mov Disord. 2017;32:955–71. https://doi.org/10.1002/mds.27038.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

35.

Niethammer M, Eidelberg D. Metabolic brain networks in translational neurology: concepts and applications. Ann Neurol. 2012;72:635–47. https://doi.org/10.1002/ana.23631.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

36.

Ge J, Wu J, Peng S, Wu P, Wang J, Zhang H, et al. Reproducible network and regional topographies of abnormal glucose metabolism associated with progressive supranuclear palsy: multivariate and univariate analyses in American and Chinese patient cohorts. Hum Brain Mapp. 2018;39:2842–58. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.24044.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

37.

Niethammer M, Tang CC, Feigin A, Allen PJ, Heinen L, Hellwig S, et al. A disease-specific metabolic brain network associated with corticobasal degeneration. Brain. 2014;137:3036–46. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awu256.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

38.

Martí-Andrés G, van Bommel L, Meles SK, Riverol M, Valentí R, Kogan RV, et al. Multicenter validation of metabolic abnormalities related to psp according to the MDS-PSP criteria. Mov Disord. 2020;35:2009–18. https://doi.org/10.1002/mds.28217.CrossRefPubMed

39.

Eckert T, Barnes A, Dhawan V, Frucht S, Gordon MF, Feigin AS, et al. FDG PET in the differential diagnosis of parkinsonian disorders. Neuroimage. 2005;26:912–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.03.012.CrossRefPubMed

40.

Eckert T, Tang C, Ma Y, Brown N, Lin T, Frucht S, et al. Abnormal metabolic networks in atypical parkinsonism. Mov Disord. 2008;23:727–33. https://doi.org/10.1002/mds.21933.CrossRefPubMed

41.

Agosta F, Altomare D, Festari C, Orini S, Gandolfo F, Boccardi M, et al. Clinical utility of FDG-PET in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and Huntington's disease. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018;45:1546–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-018-4033-0.CrossRefPubMed

42.

van Es MA, Hardiman O, Chio A, Al-Chalabi A, Pasterkamp RJ, Veldink JH, et al. Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Lancet. 2017;390:2084–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)31287-4.CrossRefPubMed

43.

Pagani M, Oberg J, De Carli F, Calvo A, Moglia C, Canosa A, et al. Metabolic spatial connectivity in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis as revealed by independent component analysis. Hum Brain Mapp. 2016;37:942–53. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.23078.CrossRefPubMed

44.

Van Weehaeghe D, Ceccarini J, Delva A, Robberecht W, Van Damme P, Van Laere K. Prospective validation of 18F-FDG brain PET discriminant analysis methods in the diagnosis of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. J Nucl Med. 2016;57:1238–43. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.115.166272.CrossRefPubMed

45.

Van Laere K, Vanhee A, Verschueren J, De Coster L, Driesen A, Dupont P, et al. Value of 18fluorodeoxyglucose-positron-emission tomography in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: a prospective study. JAMA Neurol. 2014;71:553–61. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaneurol.2014.62.CrossRefPubMed

46.

Van Weehaeghe D, Devrome M, Schramm G, De Vocht J, Deckers W, Baete K, et al. Combined brain and spinal FDG PET allows differentiation between ALS and ALS mimics. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2020;47:2681–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-020-04786-y.CrossRefPubMed

47.

Tang CC, Feigin A, Ma Y, Habeck C, Paulsen JS, Leenders KL, et al. Metabolic network as a progression biomarker of premanifest Huntington's disease. J Clin Invest. 2013;123:4076–88. https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI69411.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

48.

Feigin A, Tang C, Ma Y, Mattis P, Zgaljardic D, Guttman M, et al. Thalamic metabolism and symptom onset in preclinical Huntington's disease. Brain. 2007;130:2858–67. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awm217.CrossRefPubMed

49.

Herben-Dekker M, van Oostrom JC, Roos RA, Jurgens CK, Witjes-Ané MN, Kremer HP, et al. Striatal metabolism and psychomotor speed as predictors of motor onset in Huntington's disease. J Neurol. 2014;261:1387–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00415-014-7350-7.CrossRefPubMed

50.

Ciarmiello A, Giovacchini G, Orobello S, Bruselli L, Elifani F, Squitieri F. 18F-FDG PET uptake in the pre-Huntington disease caudate affects the time-to-onset independently of CAG expansion size. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012;39:1030–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-012-2114-z.CrossRefPubMed

51.

Hellem MNN, Vinther-Jensen T, Anderberg L, Budtz-Jørgensen E, Hjermind LE, Larsen VA, et al. Hybrid 2-[18F] FDG PET/MRI in premanifest Huntington's disease gene-expansion carriers: the significance of partial volume correction. PLoS One. 2021;16:e0252683. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0252683.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

52.

Peralta C, Biafore F, Depetris TS, Bastianello M. Recent advancement and clinical implications of 18FDG-PET in Parkinson's disease, atypical Parkinsonisms, and other movement disorders. Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep. 2019;19:56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11910-019-0966-3.CrossRefPubMed

53.

Guedj E, Bonini F, Gavaret M, Trébuchon A, Aubert S, Boucekine M, et al. 18FDG-PET in different subtypes of temporal lobe epilepsy: SEEG validation and predictive value. Epilepsia. 2015;56:414–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/epi.12917.CrossRefPubMed

54.

Lagarde S, Boucekine M, McGonigal A, Carron R, Scavarda D, Trebuchon A, et al. Relationship between PET metabolism and SEEG epileptogenicity in focal lesional epilepsy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2020;47:3130–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-020-04791-1.CrossRefPubMed

55.

Henry TR, Votaw JR. The role of positron emission tomography with [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose in the evaluation of the epilepsies. Neuroimaging Clin N Am. 2004;14:517–35, ix. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nic.2004.04.011.CrossRefPubMed

56.

Van Paesschen W, Dupont P, Sunaert S, Goffin K, Van Laere K. The use of SPECT and PET in routine clinical practice in epilepsy. Curr Opin Neurol. 2007;20:194–202. https://doi.org/10.1097/WCO.0b013e328042baf6.CrossRefPubMed

57.

Spencer SS. The relative contributions of MRI, SPECT, and PET imaging in epilepsy. Epilepsia. 1994;35(Suppl 6):S72–89. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1528-1157.1994.tb05990.x.CrossRefPubMed

58.

Gok B, Jallo G, Hayeri R, Wahl R, Aygun N. The evaluation of FDG-PET imaging for epileptogenic focus localization in patients with MRI positive and MRI negative temporal lobe epilepsy. Neuroradiology. 2013;55:541–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00234-012-1121-x.CrossRefPubMed

59.

LoPinto-Khoury C, Sperling MR, Skidmore C, Nei M, Evans J, Sharan A, et al. Surgical outcome in PET-positive, MRI-negative patients with temporal lobe epilepsy. Epilepsia. 2012;53:342–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1528-1167.2011.03359.x.CrossRefPubMed

60.

Dupont S, Semah F, Clémenceau S, Adam C, Baulac M, Samson Y. Accurate prediction of postoperative outcome in mesial temporal lobe epilepsy: a study using positron emission tomography with 18fluorodeoxyglucose. Arch Neurol. 2000;57:1331–6. https://doi.org/10.1001/archneur.57.9.1331.CrossRefPubMed

61.

Vinton AB, Carne R, Hicks RJ, Desmond PM, Kilpatrick C, Kaye AH, et al. The extent of resection of FDG-PET hypometabolism relates to outcome of temporal lobectomy. Brain. 2007;130:548–60. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awl232.CrossRefPubMed

62.

Tomás J, Pittau F, Hammers A, Bouvard S, Picard F, Vargas MI, et al. The predictive value of hypometabolism in focal epilepsy: a prospective study in surgical candidates. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2019;46:1806–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-019-04356-x.CrossRefPubMed

63.

Akanuma N, Reed LJ, Marsden PK, Jarosz J, Adachi N, Hallett WA, et al. Hemisphere-specific episodic memory networks in the human brain: a correlation study between intracarotid amobarbital test and [(18)F]FDG-PET. J Cogn Neurosci. 2009;21:605–22. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2009.21035.CrossRefPubMed

64.

Weintrob DL, Saling MM, Berkovic SF, Berlangieri SU, Reutens DC. Verbal memory in left temporal lobe epilepsy: evidence for task-related localization. Ann Neurol. 2002;51:442–7. https://doi.org/10.1002/ana.10133.CrossRefPubMed

65.

Benedetti L, Franciotta D, Zoccarato M, Beronio A, Godani M, Schirinzi E, et al. Post-therapy normalization of brain FDG-PET in Morvan's syndrome. J Neurol Sci. 2015;353:175–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jns.2015.03.035.CrossRefPubMed

66.

Mauro D, Barbagallo G, Angelo DS, Sannino P, Naty S, Bruno C, et al. Role of positron emission tomography for central nervous system involvement in systemic autoimmune diseases: status and perspectives. Curr Med Chem. 2018;25:3096–104. https://doi.org/10.2174/0929867324666170523144402.CrossRefPubMed

67.

Graus F, Titulaer MJ, Balu R, Benseler S, Bien CG, Cellucci T, et al. A clinical approach to diagnosis of autoimmune encephalitis. Lancet Neurol. 2016;15:391–404. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(15)00401-9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

68.

Morbelli S, Arbizu J, Booij J, Chen MK, Chetelat G, Cross DJ, et al. The need of standardization and of large clinical studies in an emerging indication of [(18)F]FDG PET: the autoimmune encephalitis. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. Germany; 2017. p. 353–7.

69.

De Leiris N, Ruel B, Vervandier J, Boucraut J, Grimaldi S, Horowitz T, et al. Decrease in the cortex/striatum metabolic ratio on [18F]-FDG PET: a biomarker of autoimmune encephalitis. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-021-05507-9.

70.

Baumgartner A, Rauer S, Mader I, Meyer PT. Cerebral FDG-PET and MRI findings in autoimmune limbic encephalitis: correlation with autoantibody types. J Neurol. 2013;260:2744–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00415-013-7048-2.CrossRefPubMed

71.

Morbelli S, Djekidel M, Hesse S, Pagani M, Barthel H. (EANM) NCotEAoNM, et al. role of (18)F-FDG-PET imaging in the diagnosis of autoimmune encephalitis. Lancet Neurol. 2016;15:1009–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(16)30140-5.CrossRefPubMed

72.

Albert NL, Weller M, Suchorska B, Galldiks N, Soffietti R, Kim MM, et al. Response assessment in neuro-oncology working group and european association for neuro-oncology recommendations for the clinical use of PET imaging in gliomas. Neuro-Oncology. 2016;18:1199–208. https://doi.org/10.1093/neuonc/now058.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

73.

Spence AM, Muzi M, Mankoff DA, O'Sullivan SF, Link JM, Lewellen TK, et al. 18F-FDG PET of gliomas at delayed intervals: improved distinction between tumor and normal gray matter. J Nucl Med. 2004;45:1653–9.PubMed

74.

Law I, Albert NL, Arbizu J, Boellaard R, Drzezga A, Galldiks N, et al. Joint EANM/EANO/RANO practice guidelines/SNMMI procedure standards for imaging of gliomas using PET with radiolabelled amino acids and [18 F]FDG: version 1.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2019;46:540–57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-018-4207-9.

75.

Colavolpe C, Metellus P, Mancini J, Barrie M, Béquet-Boucard C, Figarella-Branger D, et al. Independent prognostic value of pre-treatment 18-FDG-PET in high-grade gliomas. J Neuro-Oncol. 2012;107:527–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11060-011-0771-6.CrossRef

76.

Colavolpe C, Chinot O, Metellus P, Mancini J, Barrie M, Bequet-Boucard C, et al. FDG-PET predicts survival in recurrent high-grade gliomas treated with bevacizumab and irinotecan. Neuro-Oncology. 2012;14:649–57. https://doi.org/10.1093/neuonc/nos012.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

77.

Kaschten B, Stevenaert A, Sadzot B, Deprez M, Degueldre C, Del Fiore G, et al. Preoperative evaluation of 54 gliomas by PET with fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose and/or carbon-11-methionine. J Nucl Med. 1998;39:778–85.PubMed

78.

de Zwart PL, van Dijken BRJ, Holtman GA, Stormezand GN, Dierckx RAJO, Jan van Laar P, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of pet tracers for the differentiation of tumor progression from treatment-related changes in high-grade glioma: a systematic review and metaanalysis. J Nucl Med. 2020;61:498–504. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.119.233809.CrossRefPubMed

79.

Hoffman JM, Waskin HA, Schifter T, Hanson MW, Gray L, Rosenfeld S, et al. FDG-PET in differentiating lymphoma from nonmalignant central nervous system lesions in patients with AIDS. J Nucl Med. 1993;34:567–75.PubMed

80.

Gupta T, Manjali JJ, Kannan S, Purandare N, Rangarajan V. Diagnostic performance of pretreatment 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography with or without computed tomography in patients with primary central nervous system lymphoma: updated systematic review and diagnostic test accuracy meta-analyses. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clml.2021.03.011.

81.

Gupta T, Manjali JJ, Kannan S, Purandare N, Rangarajan V. Diagnostic yield of extensive systemic staging including whole-body 18f-fluoro-deoxy-glucose positron emission tomography with or without computed tomography in patients with primary central nervous system lymphoma: systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2020;20:e836–e45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clml.2020.06.019.CrossRefPubMed

82.

Spanaki MV, Siegel H, Kopylev L, Fazilat S, Dean A, Liow K, et al. The effect of vigabatrin (gamma-vinyl GABA) on cerebral blood flow and metabolism. Neurology. 1999;53:1518–22. https://doi.org/10.1212/wnl.53.7.1518.CrossRefPubMed

83.

Liu S, Wang Y, Xu K, Ping F, Li F, Wang R, et al. Voxel-based comparison of brain glucose metabolism between patients with Cushing's disease and healthy subjects. Neuroimage Clin. 2018;17:354–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nicl.2017.10.038.CrossRefPubMed

84.

Phelps ME, Huang SC, Hoffman EJ, Selin C, Sokoloff L, Kuhl DE. Tomographic measurement of local cerebral glucose metabolic rate in humans with (F-18)2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose: validation of method. Ann Neurol. 1979;6:371–88. https://doi.org/10.1002/ana.410060502.CrossRefPubMed

85.

Jamar F, Buscombe J, Chiti A, Christian PE, Delbeke D, Donohoe KJ, et al. EANM/SNMMI guideline for 18F-FDG use in inflammation and infection. J Nucl Med. 2013;54:647–58. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.112.112524.CrossRefPubMed

86.

Clifford AH, Murphy EM, Burrell SC, Bligh MP, MacDougall RF, Heathcote JG, et al. Positron emission tomography/computerized tomography in newly diagnosed patients with giant cell arteritis who are taking glucocorticoids. J Rheumatol. 2017;44:1859–66. https://doi.org/10.3899/jrheum.170138.CrossRefPubMed

87.

Berman SM, Voytek B, Mandelkern MA, Hassid BD, Isaacson A, Monterosso J, et al. Changes in cerebral glucose metabolism during early abstinence from chronic methamphetamine abuse. Mol Psychiatry. 2008;13:897–908. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.mp.4002107.CrossRefPubMed

88.

Volkow ND, Wang GJ, Shokri Kojori E, Fowler JS, Benveniste H, Tomasi D. Alcohol decreases baseline brain glucose metabolism more in heavy drinkers than controls but has no effect on stimulation-induced metabolic increases. J Neurosci. 2015;35:3248–55. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4877-14.2015.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

89.

Berding G, Odin P, Brooks DJ, Nikkhah G, Matthies C, Peschel T, et al. Resting regional cerebral glucose metabolism in advanced Parkinson's disease studied in the off and on conditions with [(18)F]FDG-PET. Mov Disord. 2001;16:1014–22. https://doi.org/10.1002/mds.1212.CrossRefPubMed

90.

Feigin A, Fukuda M, Dhawan V, Przedborski S, Jackson-Lewis V, Mentis MJ, et al. Metabolic correlates of levodopa response in Parkinson's disease. Neurology. 2001;57:2083–8. https://doi.org/10.1212/wnl.57.11.2083.CrossRefPubMed

91.

Apostolova I, Lange C, Suppa P, Spies L, Klutmann S, Adam G, et al. Impact of plasma glucose level on the pattern of brain FDG uptake and the predictive power of FDG PET in mild cognitive impairment. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018;45:1417–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-018-3985-4.CrossRefPubMed

92.

Sarikaya I, Sarikaya A, Sharma P. Assessing the effect of various blood glucose levels on. J Nucl Med Technol. 2019;47:313–8. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnmt.119.226969.CrossRefPubMed

93.

Henriksen OM, Holm S, Marner L, Law I. Effect of blood glucose and body weight on image quality in brain [18F]FDG PET imaging. Nucl Med Commun. 2020;41:1265–74. https://doi.org/10.1097/MNM.0000000000001281.CrossRefPubMed

94.

Eskian M, Alavi A, Khorasanizadeh M, Viglianti BL, Jacobsson H, Barwick TD, et al. Effect of blood glucose level on standardized uptake value (SUV) in (18)F- FDG PET-scan: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 20,807 individual SUV measurements. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2019;46:224–37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-018-4194-x.CrossRefPubMed

95.

Byun MS, Kim HJ, Yi D, Choi HJ, Baek H, Lee JH, et al. Region-specific association between basal blood insulin and cerebral glucose metabolism in older adults. Neuroimage Clin. 2019;22:101765. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nicl.2019.101765.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

96.

Sarikaya I, Sarikaya A, Sharma P. Assessing the effect of various blood glucose levels on (18)F-FDG activity in the brain, liver, and blood pool. J Nucl Med Technol. 2019;47:313–8. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnmt.119.226969.CrossRefPubMed

97.

Biessels GJ, Nobili F, Teunissen CE, Simó R, Scheltens P. Understanding multifactorial brain changes in type 2 diabetes: a biomarker perspective. Lancet Neurol. 2020;19:699–710. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(20)30139-3.CrossRefPubMed

98.

Viglianti BL, Wale DJ, Ma T, Johnson TD, Bohnen NI, Wong KK, et al. Effects of plasma glucose levels on regional cerebral 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose uptake: implications for dementia evaluation with brain PET imaging. Biomed Pharmacother. 2019;112:108628. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopha.2019.108628.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

99.

Cranston I, Marsden P, Matyka K, Evans M, Lomas J, Sonksen P, et al. Regional differences in cerebral blood flow and glucose utilization in diabetic man: the effect of insulin. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 1998;18:130–40. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004647-199802000-00002.CrossRefPubMed

100.

Hasselbalch SG, Knudsen GM, Videbaek C, Pinborg LH, Schmidt JF, Holm S, et al. No effect of insulin on glucose blood-brain barrier transport and cerebral metabolism in humans. Diabetes. 1999;48:1915–21. https://doi.org/10.2337/diabetes.48.10.1915.CrossRefPubMed

101.

Bordonne M, Chawki MB, Marie PY, Zaragori T, Roch V, Grignon R, et al. High-quality brain perfusion SPECT images may be achieved with a high-speed recording using 360° CZT camera. EJNMMI Phys. 2020;7:65. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40658-020-00334-7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

102.

Ishizu K, Nishizawa S, Yonekura Y, Sadato N, Magata Y, Tamaki N, et al. Effects of hyperglycemia on FDG uptake in human brain and glioma. J Nucl Med. 1994;35:1104–9.PubMed

103.

Hahn A, Gryglewski G, Nics L, Hienert M, Rischka L, Vraka C, et al. Quantification of task-specific glucose metabolism with constant infusion of 18F-FDG. J Nucl Med. 2016;57:1933–40. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.116.176156.CrossRefPubMed

104.

Lassmann M, Treves ST, Group ESPDHW. Paediatric radiopharmaceutical administration: harmonization of the 2007 EANM paediatric dosage card (version 1.5.2008) and the 2010 North American consensus guidelines. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;41:1036–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-014-2731-9.

105.

Ruotsalainen U, Suhonen-Polvi H, Eronen E, Kinnala A, Bergman J, Haaparanta M, et al. Estimated radiation dose to the newborn in FDG-PET studies. J Nucl Med. 1996;37:387–93.PubMed

106.

Wu TH, Huang YH, Lee JJ, Wang SY, Wang SC, Su CT, et al. Radiation exposure during transmission measurements: comparison between CT- and germanium-based techniques with a current PET scanner. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2004;31:38–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-003-1327-6.CrossRefPubMed

107.

Rausch I, Ruiz A, Valverde-Pascual I, Cal-González J, Beyer T, Carrio I. Performance evaluation of the vereos PET/CT system according to the NEMA NU2-2012 standard. J Nucl Med. 2019;60:561–7. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.118.215541.CrossRefPubMed

108.

Hsu DFC, Ilan E, Peterson WT, Uribe J, Lubberink M, Levin CS. Studies of a next-generation silicon-photomultiplier-based time-of-flight PET/CT system. J Nucl Med. 2017;58:1511–8. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.117.189514.CrossRefPubMed

109.

van Sluis J, de Jong J, Schaar J, Noordzij W, van Snick P, Dierckx R, et al. Performance characteristics of the digital biograph vision PET/CT system. J Nucl Med. 2019;60:1031–6. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.118.215418.CrossRefPubMed

110.

van Sluis J, Boellaard R, Somasundaram A, van Snick PH, Borra RJH, Dierckx RAJO, et al. Image quality and semiquantitative measurements on the biograph vision PET/CT system: initial experiences and comparison with the biograph mCT. J Nucl Med. 2020;61:129–35. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.119.227801.CrossRefPubMed

111.

Chen S, Hu P, Gu Y, Yu H, Shi H. Performance characteristics of the digital uMI550 PET/CT system according to the NEMA NU2-2018 standard. EJNMMI Phys. 2020;7:43. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40658-020-00315-w.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

112.

Salvadori J, Imbert L, Perrin M, Karcher G, Lamiral Z, Marie PY, et al. Head-to-head comparison of image quality between brain. EJNMMI Res. 2019;9:61. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13550-019-0526-5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

113.

Rausch I, Quick HH, Cal-Gonzalez J, Sattler B, Boellaard R, Beyer T. Technical and instrumentational foundations of PET/MRI. Eur J Radiol. 2017;94:A3–A13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2017.04.004.CrossRefPubMed

114.

Chen Y, Ying C, Binkley MM, Juttukonda MR, Flores S, Laforest R, et al. Deep learning-based T1-enhanced selection of linear attenuation coefficients (DL-TESLA) for PET/MR attenuation correction in dementia neuroimaging. Magn Reson Med. 2021;86:499–513. https://doi.org/10.1002/mrm.28689.CrossRefPubMed

115.

Mecheter I, Alic L, Abbod M, Amira A, Ji J. MR image-based attenuation correction of brain pet imaging: review of literature on machine learning approaches for segmentation. J Digit Imaging. 2020;33:1224–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-020-00361-x.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

116.

Hofmann M, Pichler B, Schölkopf B, Beyer T. Towards quantitative PET/MRI: a review of MR-based attenuation correction techniques. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2009;36(Suppl 1):S93–104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-008-1007-7.CrossRefPubMed

117.

De Luca F, Bolin M, Blomqvist L, Wassberg C, Martin H, Falk DA. Validation of PET/MRI attenuation correction methodology in the study of brain tumours. BMC Med Imaging. 2020;20:126. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12880-020-00526-8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

118.

Ladefoged CN, Hansen AE, Henriksen OM, Bruun FJ, Eikenes L, Øen SK, et al. AI-driven attenuation correction for brain PET/MRI: clinical evaluation of a dementia cohort and importance of the training group size. Neuroimage. 2020;222:117221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.117221.CrossRefPubMed

119.

Ladefoged CN, Law I, Anazodo U, St Lawrence K, Izquierdo-Garcia D, Catana C, et al. A multi-Centre evaluation of eleven clinically feasible brain PET/MRI attenuation correction techniques using a large cohort of patients. Neuroimage. 2017;147:346–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.12.010.CrossRefPubMed

120.

Ladefoged CN, Andersen FL, Kjær A, Højgaard L, Law I. Resolute PET/MRI attenuation correction for O-(2-(18)F-fluoroethyl)-L-tyrosine (FET) in brain tumor patients with metal implants. Front Neurosci. 2017;11:453. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2017.00453.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

121.

Chen WP, Matsunari I, Noda A, Yanase D, Yajima K, Takeda N, et al. Rapid scanning protocol for brain (18)F-FDG PET: a validation study. J Nucl Med. 2005;46:1633–41.PubMed

122.

Verwer EE, Golla SSV, Kaalep A, Lubberink M, van Velden FHP, Bettinardi V, et al. Harmonisation of PET/CT contrast recovery performance for brain studies. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-021-05201-w.

123.

Verger A, Guedj E. The renaissance of functional F-18-FDG PET brain activation imaging. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018;45:2338–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-018-4165-2.CrossRefPubMed

124.

Rousseau PF, Malbos E, Verger A, Nicolas F, Lancon C, Khalfa S, et al. Increase of precuneus metabolism correlates with reduction of PTSD symptoms after EMDR therapy in military veterans: an 18F-FDG PET study during virtual reality exposure to war. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2019;46:1817–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-019-04360-1.CrossRefPubMed

125.

Verger A, Malbos E, Reynaud E, Mallet P, Mestre D, Pergandi JM, et al. Brain metabolism and related connectivity in patients with acrophobia treated by virtual reality therapy: an (18)F-FDG PET pilot study sensitized by virtual exposure. EJNMMI Res. 2018;8:93. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13550-018-0446-9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

126.

Schreckenberger M, Spetzger U, Sabri O, Meyer PT, Zeggel T, Zimny M, et al. Localisation of motor areas in brain tumour patients: a comparison of preoperative [18F]FDG-PET and intraoperative cortical electrostimulation. Eur J Nucl Med. 2001;28:1394–403. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002590100582.CrossRefPubMed

127.

Herholz K, Pietrzyk U, Karbe H, Würker M, Wienhard K, Heiss WD. Individual metabolic anatomy of repeating words demonstrated by MRI-guided positron emission tomography. Neurosci Lett. 1994;182:47–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3940(94)90202-x.CrossRefPubMed

128.

Schelbert HR, Hoh CK, Royal HD, Brown M, Dahlbom MN, Dehdashti F, et al. Procedure guideline for tumor imaging using fluorine-18-FDG. Society of Nuclear Medicine. J Nucl Med. 1998;39:1302–5.PubMed

129.

Phelps ME. PET: the merging of biology and imaging into molecular imaging. J Nucl Med. 2000;41:661–81.PubMed

130.

Lucignani G, Schmidt KC, Moresco RM, Striano G, Colombo F, Sokoloff L, et al. Measurement of regional cerebral glucose utilization with fluorine-18-FDG and PET in heterogeneous tissues: theoretical considerations and practical procedure. J Nucl Med. 1993;34:360–9.PubMed

131.

Henry TR, Engel J, Mazziotta JC. Clinical evaluation of interictal fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose PET in partial epilepsy. J Nucl Med. 1993;34:1892–8.PubMed

132.

Graham MM, Muzi M, Spence AM, O'Sullivan F, Lewellen TK, Link JM, et al. The FDG lumped constant in normal human brain. J Nucl Med. 2002;43:1157–66.PubMed

133.

Hasselbalch SG, Madsen PL, Knudsen GM, Holm S, Paulson OB. Calculation of the FDG lumped constant by simultaneous measurements of global glucose and FDG metabolism in humans. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 1998;18:154–60. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004647-199802000-00005.CrossRefPubMed

134.

Spence AM, Muzi M, Graham MM, O'Sullivan F, Krohn KA, Link JM, et al. Glucose metabolism in human malignant gliomas measured quantitatively with PET, 1-[C-11]glucose and FDG: analysis of the FDG lumped constant. J Nucl Med. 1998;39:440–8.PubMed

135.

Owen OE, Morgan AP, Kemp HG, Sullivan JM, Herrera MG, Cahill GF. Brain metabolism during fasting. J Clin Invest. 1967;46:1589–95. https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI105650.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

136.

Redies C, Hoffer LJ, Beil C, Marliss EB, Evans AC, Lariviere F, et al. Generalized decrease in brain glucose metabolism during fasting in humans studied by PET. Am J Phys. 1989;256:E805–10. https://doi.org/10.1152/ajpendo.1989.256.6.E805.CrossRef

137.

Minoshima S, Koeppe RA, Mintun MA, Berger KL, Taylor SF, Frey KA, et al. Automated detection of the intercommissural line for stereotactic localization of functional brain images. J Nucl Med. 1993;34:322–9.PubMed

138.

Ohnishi T, Hoshi H, Nagamachi S, Jinnouchi S, Flores LG, Futami S, et al. High-resolution SPECT to assess hippocampal perfusion in neuropsychiatric diseases. J Nucl Med. 1995;36:1163–9.PubMed

139.

Kono AK, Ishii K, Sofue K, Miyamoto N, Sakamoto S, Mori E. Fully automatic differential diagnosis system for dementia with Lewy bodies and Alzheimer's disease using FDG-PET and 3D-SSP. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2007;34:1490–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-007-0380-y.CrossRefPubMed

140.

Burdette JH, Minoshima S, Vander Borght T, Tran DD, Kuhl DE. Alzheimer disease: improved visual interpretation of PET images by using three-dimensional stereotaxic surface projections. Radiology. 1996;198:837–43. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.198.3.8628880.CrossRefPubMed

141.

Lehman VT, Carter RE, Claassen DO, Murphy RC, Lowe V, Petersen RC, et al. Visual assessment versus quantitative three-dimensional stereotactic surface projection fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography for detection of mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer disease. Clin Nucl Med. 2012;37:721–6. https://doi.org/10.1097/RLU.0b013e3182478d89.CrossRefPubMed

142.

Morbelli S, Brugnolo A, Bossert I, Buschiazzo A, Frisoni GB, Galluzzi S, et al. Visual versus semi-quantitative analysis of 18F-FDG-PET in amnestic MCI: an European Alzheimer's disease consortium (EADC) project. J Alzheimers Dis. 2015;44:815–26. https://doi.org/10.3233/JAD-142229.CrossRefPubMed

143.

Perani D, Della Rosa PA, Cerami C, Gallivanone F, Fallanca F, Vanoli EG, et al. Validation of an optimized SPM procedure for FDG-PET in dementia diagnosis in a clinical setting. Neuroimage Clin. 2014;6:445–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nicl.2014.10.009.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

144.

Frisoni GB, Bocchetta M, Chételat G, Rabinovici GD, de Leon MJ, Kaye J, et al. Imaging markers for Alzheimer disease: which vs how. Neurology. 2013;81:487–500. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0b013e31829d86e8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

145.

Signorini M, Paulesu E, Friston K, Perani D, Colleluori A, Lucignani G, et al. Rapid assessment of regional cerebral metabolic abnormalities in single subjects with quantitative and nonquantitative [18F]FDG PET: a clinical validation of statistical parametric mapping. Neuroimage. 1999;9:63–80. https://doi.org/10.1006/nimg.1998.0381.CrossRefPubMed

146.

Minoshima S, Frey KA, Koeppe RA, Foster NL, Kuhl DE. A diagnostic approach in Alzheimer's disease using three-dimensional stereotactic surface projections of fluorine-18-FDG PET. J Nucl Med. 1995;36:1238–48.PubMed

147.

Ishii K, Kono AK, Sasaki H, Miyamoto N, Fukuda T, Sakamoto S, et al. Fully automatic diagnostic system for early- and late-onset mild Alzheimer's disease using FDG PET and 3D-SSP. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2006;33:575–83. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-005-0015-0.CrossRefPubMed

148.

Wagatsuma K, Sakata M, Ishibashi K, Hirayama A, Kawakami H, Miwa K, et al. Direct comparison of brain [(18)F]FDG images acquired by SiPM-based and PMT-based PET/CT: phantom and clinical studies. EJNMMI Phys. 2020;7:70. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40658-020-00337-4.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

149.

Garibotto V, Trombella S, Antelmi L, Bosco P, Redolfi A, Tabouret-Viaud C, et al. A comparison of two statistical mapping tools for automated brain FDG-PET analysis in predicting conversion to Alzheimer's disease in subjects with mild cognitive impairment. Curr Alzheimer Res. 2020;17:1186–94. https://doi.org/10.2174/1567205018666210212162443.CrossRefPubMed

150.

Petersen RC, Aisen PS, Beckett LA, Donohue MC, Gamst AC, Harvey DJ, et al. Alzheimer's disease neuroimaging initiative (ADNI): clinical characterization. Neurology. 2010;74:201–9. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0b013e3181cb3e25.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

151.

Caminiti SP, Sala A, Presotto L, Chincarini A, Sestini S, Perani D, et al. Validation of FDG-PET datasets of normal controls for the extraction of SPM-based brain metabolism maps. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-020-05175-1.

152.

Thomas BA, Erlandsson K, Modat M, Thurfjell L, Vandenberghe R, Ourselin S, et al. The importance of appropriate partial volume correction for PET quantification in Alzheimer's disease. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;38:1104–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-011-1745-9.CrossRefPubMed

153.

Yang J, Hu C, Guo N, Dutta J, Vaina LM, Johnson KA, et al. Partial volume correction for PET quantification and its impact on brain network in Alzheimer's disease. Sci Rep. 2017;7:13035. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-13339-7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

154.

López-González FJ, Silva-Rodríguez J, Paredes-Pacheco J, Niñerola-Baizán A, Efthimiou N, Martín-Martín C, et al. Intensity normalization methods in brain FDG-PET quantification. Neuroimage. 2020;222:117229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.117229.CrossRefPubMed

155.

Mortensen KN, Gjedde A, Thompson GJ, Herman P, Parent MJ, Rothman DL, et al. Impact of global mean normalization on regional glucose metabolism in the human brain. Neural Plast. 2018;2018:6120925. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/6120925.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

156.

Borghammer P, Jonsdottir KY, Cumming P, Ostergaard K, Vang K, Ashkanian M, et al. Normalization in PET group comparison studies--the importance of a valid reference region. Neuroimage. 2008;40:529–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.12.057.CrossRefPubMed

157.

Borghammer P. Perfusion and metabolism imaging studies in Parkinson's disease. Dan Med J. 2012;59:B4466.PubMed

158.

Yakushev I, Landvogt C, Buchholz HG, Fellgiebel A, Hammers A, Scheurich A, et al. Choice of reference area in studies of Alzheimer's disease using positron emission tomography with fluorodeoxyglucose-F18. Psychiatry Res. 2008;164:143–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pscychresns.2007.11.004.CrossRefPubMed

159.

Zhang H, Wu P, Ziegler SI, Guan Y, Wang Y, Ge J, et al. Data-driven identification of intensity normalization region based on longitudinal coherency of 18 F-FDG metabolism in the healthy brain. Neuroimage. 2017;146:589–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.09.031.CrossRefPubMed

160.

Morbelli S, Arbizu J, Booij J, Chen MK, Chetelat G, Cross DJ, et al. The need of standardization and of large clinical studies in an emerging indication of [18 F]FDG PET: the autoimmune encephalitis. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017;44:353–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-016-3589-9.CrossRefPubMed

161.

Drzezga A, Arnold S, Minoshima S, Noachtar S, Szecsi J, Winkler P, et al. 18F-FDG PET studies in patients with extratemporal and temporal epilepsy: evaluation of an observer-independent analysis. J Nucl Med. 1999;40:737–46.PubMed

162.

Busemann Sokole E, Płachcínska A, Britten A, Lyra Georgosopoulou M, Tindale W, Klett R, et al. Routine quality control recommendations for nuclear medicine instrumentation. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010;37:662–71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-009-1347-y.CrossRefPubMed

163.

Cook GJ, Maisey MN, Fogelman I. Normal variants, artefacts and interpretative pitfalls in PET imaging with 18-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose and carbon-11 methionine. Eur J Nucl Med. 1999;26:1363–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002590050597.CrossRefPubMed

164.

Sala A, Caprioglio C, Santangelo R, Vanoli EG, Iannaccone S, Magnani G, et al. Brain metabolic signatures across the Alzheimer's disease spectrum. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2020;47:256–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-019-04559-2.CrossRefPubMed

165.

McKeith I, O'Brien J, Walker Z, Tatsch K, Booij J, Darcourt J, et al. Sensitivity and specificity of dopamine transporter imaging with 123I-FP-CIT SPECT in dementia with Lewy bodies: a phase III, multicentre study. Lancet Neurol. 2007;6:305–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(07)70057-1.CrossRefPubMed

166.

Morbelli S, Esposito G, Arbizu J, Barthel H, Boellaard R, Bohnen NI, et al. EANM practice guideline/SNMMI procedure standard for dopaminergic imaging in Parkinsonian syndromes 1.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2020;47:1885–912. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-020-04817-8.

167.

Brown RK, Bohnen NI, Wong KK, Minoshima S, Frey KA. Brain PET in suspected dementia: patterns of altered FDG metabolism. Radiographics. 2014;34:684–701. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.343135065.CrossRefPubMed

168.

Nestor PJ, Balan K, Cheow HK, Fryer TD, Knibb JA, Xuereb JH, et al. Nuclear imaging can predict pathologic diagnosis in progressive nonfluent aphasia. Neurology. 2007;68:238–9. https://doi.org/10.1212/01.wnl.0000251309.54320.9f.CrossRefPubMed

169.

Nestor PJ, Altomare D, Festari C, Drzezga A, Rivolta J, Walker Z, et al. Clinical utility of FDG-PET for the differential diagnosis among the main forms of dementia. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018;45:1509–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-018-4035-y.CrossRefPubMed

170.

Whitwell JL, Duffy JR, Strand EA, Machulda MM, Senjem ML, Schwarz CG, et al. Clinical and neuroimaging biomarkers of amyloid-negative logopenic primary progressive aphasia. Brain Lang. 2015;142:45–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2015.01.009.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

171.

Zorzi G, Cecchin D, Busse C, Perini G, Corbetta M, Cagnin A. Changes of metabolic connectivity in dementia with Lewy bodies with visual hallucinations: a 18F-FDG PET/MR study. Brain Connect. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1089/brain.2020.0988.

172.

Scheltens NME, van der Weijden K, Adriaanse SM, van Assema D, Oomen PP, Krudop WA, et al. Hypometabolism of the posterior cingulate cortex is not restricted to Alzheimer's disease. Neuroimage Clin. 2018;19:625-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nicl.2018.05.024.

Title: EANM procedure guidelines for brain PET imaging using [18F]FDG, version 3
Authors: Eric Guedj
Andrea Varrone
Ronald Boellaard
Nathalie L. Albert
Henryk Barthel
Bart van Berckel
Matthias Brendel
Diego Cecchin
Ozgul Ekmekcioglu
Valentina Garibotto
Adriaan A. Lammertsma
Ian Law
Iván Peñuelas
Franck Semah
Tatjana Traub-Weidinger
Elsmarieke van de Giessen
Donatienne Van Weehaeghe
Silvia Morbelli
Publication date: 01-01-2022
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Keywords: Lymphoma
Glioma
Glioma
Dementia
Epilepsy
Glioma
Dementia
Encephalitis
Published in: European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging / Issue 2/2022
Print ISSN: 1619-7070
Electronic ISSN: 1619-7089
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-021-05603-w

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

EANM procedure guidelines for brain PET imaging using [¹⁸F]FDG, version 3

Abstract

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 2/2022

Image enhancement of whole-body oncology [18F]-FDG PET scans using deep neural networks to reduce noise

Prospective intra-individual blinded comparison of [18F]PSMA-1007 and [68 Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT imaging in patients with confirmed prostate cancer

Impact of the mouse model and molar amount of injected ligand on the tissue distribution profile of PSMA radioligands

Correction to: Prospective intra‑individual blinded comparison of [18F]PSMA‑1007 and [68 Ga]Ga‑PSMA‑11 PET/CT imaging in patients with confirmed prostate cancer

EANM Springer Prizes 2021 awarded at EANM 2021

Intra-therapeutic dosimetry of [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 in low-volume hormone-sensitive metastatic prostate cancer patients and correlation with treatment outcome