Research ArticleIMAGING

Whole-Body 18F-FDG PET/CT: The Need for a Standardized Field of View—A Referring-Physician Aid

Scott F. Huston, Amir G. Abdelmalik, Nghi C. Nguyen, Hussein R. Farghaly and Medhat M. Osman
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology September 2010, 38 (3) 123-127; DOI: https://doi.org/10.2967/jnmt.109.073353

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • FIGURE 1.
    FIGURE 1.

    FOVs were categorized into 5 anatomic scan lengths: base of skull to upper thigh (A), base of skull to mid thigh (B), top of head to upper thigh (C), top of head to mid thigh (D), and top of head to bottom of feet (true whole-body) (E). (A color version of this figure is available as a supplemental file online at http://tech.snmjournals.org/.)

  • FIGURE 2.
    FIGURE 2.

    Percentages of patients scanned in the 5 anatomic scan length categories: category A, 27%; category B, 1%; category C, 63.5%; category D, 7%; and category E, 1.5%. PM = private mobile site; PS = private stationary site; SU = stationary university site.

  • FIGURE 3.
    FIGURE 3.

    Summary of arm positions in all studied centers. Patients’ arms were up 46% of the time and down 54% of the time during scanning.

Tables

  • TABLE 1

    Current Procedural Terminology Codes for Oncology PET Protocols

    CodeDescription
    78811Tumor-imaging PET; limited area
    78812Tumor-imaging PET; skull base to mid thigh
    78813Tumor-imaging PET; whole body
    78814Tumor-imaging PET with concurrent CT for attenuation correction and anatomic localization; limited area
    78815Tumor-imaging PET with concurrent CT for attenuation correction and anatomic localization; skull base to mid thigh
    78816Tumor-imaging PET with concurrent CT for attenuation correction and anatomic localization; whole body

Additional Files

Back to top

In this issue

Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Email Article
Citation Tools
Bookmark this article

Jump to section