It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
The aim of the study was to derive and compare metabolic parameters relating to benign and malignant pulmonary nodules using dynamic 2-deoxy-2-[fluorine-18]fluoro-D-glucose (18F-FDG) PET/CT, and nodule perfusion parameters derived through perfusion computed tomography (CT). Twenty patients with 21 pulmonary nodules incidentally detected on CT underwent a dynamic 18F-FDG PET/CT and a perfusion CT. The maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) was measured on conventional 18F-FDG PET/CT images. The influx constant (Ki) was calculated from the dynamic 18F-FDG PET/CT data using Patlak model. Arterial flow (AF) using the maximum slope model and blood volume (BV) using the Patlak plot method for each nodule were calculated from the perfusion CT data. All nodules were characterized as malignant or benign based on histopathology or 2 year follow up CT. All parameters were statistically compared between the two groups using the nonparametric Mann-Whitney test. Twelve malignant and 9 benign lung nodules were analysed (median size 20.1 mm, 9–29 mm) in 21 patients (male/female = 11/9; mean age ± SD: 65.3 ± 7.4; age range: 50–76 years). The average SUVmax values ± SD of the benign and malignant nodules were 2.2 ± 1.7 vs. 7.0 ± 4.5, respectively (p = 0.0148). Average Ki values in benign and malignant nodules were 0.0057 ± 0.0071 and 0.0230 ± 0.0155 min-1, respectively (p = 0.0311). Average BV for the benign and malignant nodules were 11.6857 ± 6.7347 and 28.3400 ± 15.9672 ml/100 ml, respectively (p = 0.0250). Average AF for the benign and malignant nodules were 74.4571 ± 89.0321 and 89.200 ± 49.8883 ml/100g/min, respectively (p = 0.1613). Dynamic 18F-FDG PET/CT and perfusion CT derived blood volume had similar capability to differentiate benign from malignant lung nodules.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 Edinburgh Imaging facility Queens Medical Research Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom; Faculty of Medicine, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia
2 Department of Radiology, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
3 Department of Respiratory Medicine, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
4 Edinburgh Imaging facility Queens Medical Research Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
5 Department of Pathology, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
6 Faculty of Medicine, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia
7 Edinburgh Imaging facility Queens Medical Research Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom; National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom