JNMT
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


First published online May 11, 2007, 10.2967/jnmt.106.036129
doi:10.2967/jnmt.106.036129
This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
jnmt.106.036129v1
35/2/100    most recent
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Nair, N.
Right arrow Articles by Jaiswar, R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Nair, N.
Right arrow Articles by Jaiswar, R.
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology Volume 35, Number 2, 2007 100-104
© 2007 by Society of Nuclear Medicine

Substitution of Oral 18F-FDG for Intravenous 18F-FDG in PET Scanning

Narendra Nair, Archi Agrawal and Rajnath Jaiswar

Radiation Medicine Centre, Tata Memorial Hospital Annexe, Parel, Mumbai, India

Correspondence: For correspondence or reprints contact: Archi Agrawal, Radiation Medicine Centre, Tata Memorial Hospital, Annexe Building, Jerbai Wadia Rd., Parel, Mumbai, 400 012, India. E-mail: drarchi23{at}hotmail.com

The aim of this study was to see whether oral administration of 18F-FDG could be substituted—without significant loss of information—for intravenous injection of 18F-FDG in patients with difficult intravenous access of any cause, such as that often seen in cancer patients after many cycles of chemotherapy. Methods: PET after both oral and intravenous administration of 18F-FDG was performed on 2 healthy volunteers and 7 patients. An interval of 48 h was maintained between the oral administration and the intravenous administration. All scans were visually analyzed. Semiquantitative analysis of specific areas was done by calculating standardized uptake values (SUVs). Scanning was performed 60 min after intravenous tracer administration and 90 min after oral tracer administration. Results: All lesions seen after intravenous administration were visualized on the oral study as well. SUVs were lower on the oral study than on the intravenous study. Conclusion: Oral 18F-FDG can successfully be substituted for intravenous 18F-FDG in patients with difficult intravenous access. However, because of the large amount of 18F-FDG retained in the gut, careful interpretation will be required when disease of the gastrointestinal tract is being evaluated.

Key Words: difficult intravenous access; oral 18F-FDG; PET scan







HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
THE JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE TECHNOLOGY
Copyright © 2007 by the Society of Nuclear Medicine Technologist Section.