These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Imaging of gynecologic tumors: comparison of (11)C-choline PET with (18)F-FDG PET.
    Author: Torizuka T, Kanno T, Futatsubashi M, Okada H, Yoshikawa E, Nakamura F, Takekuma M, Maeda M, Ouchi Y.
    Journal: J Nucl Med; 2003 Jul; 44(7):1051-6. PubMed ID: 12843219.
    Abstract:
    UNLABELLED: This study was designed to compare the value of PET using (11)C-choline with that of PET using (18)F-FDG for the diagnosis of gynecologic tumors. METHODS: We examined 21 patients, including 18 patients with untreated primary tumors and 3 patients with suspected recurrence of ovarian cancer. (11)C-choline PET and (18)F-FDG PET were performed within 2 wk of each other on each patient. The patients fasted for at least 5 h before the PET examinations, and PET was performed 5 min ((11)C-choline) and 60 min ((18)F-FDG) after injection of each tracer. PET images were corrected for the transmission data, and the reconstructed images were visually analyzed. Then, the standardized uptake value (SUV) was calculated for quantitative assessment of tumor uptake. PET results were compared with surgical histology or >6 mo of clinical observations. RESULTS: Of 18 untreated patients, (11)C-choline PET correctly detected primary tumors in 16 patients, whereas (18)F-FDG PET detected them in 14 patients. In 1 patient with small uterine cervical cancer and 1 diabetic patient with uterine corpus cancer, only (11)C-choline PET was true-positive. Both tracers were false-negative for atypical hyperplasia of the endometrium in 1 patient and were false-positive for pelvic inflammatory disease in 1 patient. For the diagnosis of recurrent ovarian cancer (n = 3), (11)C-choline PET and (18)F-FDG PET were true-positive in 1 patient, whereas neither tracer could detect cystic recurrent tumor and microscopic peritoneal disease in the other 2 patients. In the 15 patients with true-positive results for both tracers, tumor SUVs were significantly higher for (18)F-FDG than for (11)C-choline (9.14 +/- 3.78 vs. 4.61 +/- 1.61, P < 0.0001). In 2 patients with uterine cervical cancer, parailiac lymph node metastases were clearly visible on (18)F-FDG PET but were obscured by physiologic bowel uptake on (11)C-choline PET. CONCLUSION: The use of (11)C-choline PET is feasible for imaging of gynecologic tumors. Unlike (18)F-FDG PET, interpretation of the primary tumor on (11)C-choline PET is not hampered by urinary radioactivity; however, variable background activity in the intestine may interfere with the interpretation.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]