Procedure Guideline for SPECT/CT Imaging 1.0.
Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee 37232-2675, USA.Journal of Nuclear Medicine (Impact Factor: 5.77). 08/2006; 47(7):1227-34.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Osteosarcoma is the most common primary osseous malignancy excluding malignant neoplasms of marrow origin (myeloma, lymphoma and leukemia) and accounts for approximately 20% of bone cancers. It predominantly affects patients younger than 20 years and mainly occurs in the long bones of the extremities, the most common being the metaphyseal area around the knee. These are classified as primary (central or surface) and secondary osteosarcomas arising in preexisting conditions. The conventional plain radiograph is the best for probable diagnosis as it describes features like sun burst appearance, Codman's triangle, new bone formation in soft tissues along with permeative pattern of destruction of the bone and other characteristics for specific subtypes of osteosarcomas. X-ray chest can detect metastasis in the lungs, but computerized tomography (CT) scan of the thorax is more helpful. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the lesion delineates its extent into the soft tissues, the medullary canal, the joint, skip lesions and the proximity of the tumor to the neurovascular structures. Tc99 bone scan detects the osseous metastases. Positron Emission Tomography (PET) is used for metastatic workup and/or local recurrence after resection. The role of biochemical markers like alkaline phosphatase and lactate dehydrogenase is pertinent for prognosis and treatment response. The biopsy confirms the diagnosis and reveals the grade of the tumor. Enneking system for staging malignant musculoskeletal tumors and American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging systems are most commonly used for extremity sarcomas.Indian Journal of Orthopaedics 05/2014; 48(3):238-46. · 0.74 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To compare the effects of two different contrast medium concentrations for use in computed X-ray tomography (CT) employing two different injection protocols on positron emission tomography (PET) reconstruction in combined 2-(18)F-desoxyglucose (FDG) PET/CT in patients with a suspicion of lung cancer. 120 patients with a suspicion of lung cancer were enrolled prospectively. PET images were reconstructed with the non-enhanced and venous phase contrast CT obtained after injection of iopromide 300mg/ml or 370mg/ml using either a fixed-dose or a body surface area adapted injection protocol. Maximum and mean standardized uptake values (SUVmax and SUVmean) and contrast enhancement (HU) were determined in the subclavian vein, ascending aorta, abdominal aorta, inferior vena cava, portal vein, liver and kidney and in the suspicious lung lesion. PET data were evaluated visually for the presence of malignancy and image quality. At none of the sites a significant difference in the extent of the contrast enhancement between the four different protocols was found. However, the variability of the contrast enhancement at several anatomical sites was significantly greater in the fixed dose groups than in the BSA groups for both contrast medium concentrations. At none of the sites a significant difference was found in the extent of the SUVmax and SUVmean increase as a result of the use of the venous phase contrast enhanced CT for attenuation. Visual clinical evaluation of lesions showed no differences between contrast and non-contrast PET/CT (P=0.32). Contrast enhanced CT for attenuation correction in combined PET/CT in lung cancer affects neither the clinical assessment nor image quality of the PET-images. A body surface adapted contrast medium protocol reduces the interpatient variability in contrast enhancement.European journal of radiology 07/2013; · 2.65 Impact Factor
- Pediatric Radiology 04/2013; 43(4):391-2. · 1.57 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.