Next Article in Journal
Small Fibre Involvement in Multifocal Motor Neuropathy Explored with Sudoscan: A Single-Centre Experience
Previous Article in Journal
Diagnostic Performance of 18F-FDG PET/CT in Native Valve Endocarditis: Systematic Review and Bivariate Meta-Analysis
Open AccessArticle

Image Quality and Interpretation of [18F]-FES-PET: Is There any Effect of Food Intake?

1
Department of Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, 9700 RB Groningen, The Netherlands
2
Department of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, 9700 RB Groningen, The Netherlands
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Diagnostics 2020, 10(10), 756; https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics10100756
Received: 29 August 2020 / Revised: 21 September 2020 / Accepted: 23 September 2020 / Published: 26 September 2020
(This article belongs to the Section Medical Imaging)
Background: High physiological 16α-[18F]-fluoro-17β-estradiol ([18F]-FES) uptake in the abdomen is a limitation of this positron emission tomography (PET) tracer. Therefore, we investigated the effect of food intake prior to PET acquisition on abdominal background activity in [18F]-FES-PET scans. Methods: Breast cancer patients referred for [18F]-FES-PET were included. Three groups were designed: (1) patients who consumed a chocolate bar (fatty meal) between tracer injection and imaging (n = 20), (2) patients who fasted before imaging (n = 20), and (3) patients without diet restrictions (control group, n = 20). We compared the physiological [18F]-FES uptake, expressed as mean standardized uptake value (SUVmean), in the abdomen between groups. Results: A significant difference in [18F]-FES uptake in the gall bladder and stomach lumen was observed between groups, with the lowest values for the chocolate group and highest for the fasting group (p = 0.015 and p = 0.011, respectively). Post hoc analysis showed significant differences in the SUVmean of these organs between the chocolate and fasting groups, but not between the chocolate and control groups. Conclusion: This exploratory study showed that, compared to fasting, eating chocolate decreases physiological gall bladder and stomach [18F]-FES uptake; further reduction through a normal diet was not seen. A prospective study is warranted to confirm this finding. View Full-Text
Keywords: FES-PET; breast cancer; abdominal distribution; fasting; chocolate FES-PET; breast cancer; abdominal distribution; fasting; chocolate
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Boers, J.; Giatagana, K.; Schröder, C.P.; Hospers, G.A.; de Vries, E.F.; Glaudemans, A.W. Image Quality and Interpretation of [18F]-FES-PET: Is There any Effect of Food Intake? Diagnostics 2020, 10, 756.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Search more from Scilit
 
Search
Back to TopTop