Oral administration of F-18 FDG to evaluate a single pulmonary nodule by positron emission tomography in a patient with poor intravenous access

Human Radiation Dosimetry for Orally and Intravenously Administered 18F-FDG

Intravenous access is difficult in some patients referred for ¹⁸F-FDG PET imaging. Extravasation at the injection site and accumulation in central catheters can lead to limited tumor ¹⁸F-FDG uptake, erroneous quantitation, and significant image artifacts. In this study, we compared the human biodistribution and dosimetry for ¹⁸F-FDG after oral and intravenous administrations sequentially in the same subjects to ascertain the dosimetry and potential suitability of orally administered ¹⁸F-FDG as an alternative to intravenous administration. We also compared our detailed intravenous ¹⁸F-FDG dosimetry with older dosimetry data. Methods: Nine healthy volunteers (6 male and 3 female; aged 19-32 y) underwent PET/CT imaging after oral and intravenous administration of ¹⁸F-FDG. Identical preparation and imaging protocols (except administration route) were used for oral and intravenous studies. During each imaging session, 9 whole-body PET scans were obtained at 5, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 120, and 240 min after ¹⁸F-FDG administration (370 ± 16 MBq). Source organ contours drawn using CT were overlaid onto registered PET images to extract time-activity curves. Time-integrated activity coefficients derived from time-activity curves were given as input to OLINDA/EXM for dose calculations. Results: Blood uptake after orally administered ¹⁸F-FDG peaked at 45-50 min after ingestion. The oral-to-intravenous ratios of ¹⁸F-FDG uptake for major organs at 45 min were 1.07 ± 0.24 for blood, 0.94 ± 0.39 for heart wall, 0.47 ± 0.12 for brain, 1.25 ± 0.18 for liver, and 0.84 ± 0.24 for kidneys. The highest organ-absorbed doses (μGy/MBq) after oral ¹⁸F-FDG administration were observed for urinary bladder (75.9 ± 17.2), stomach (48.4 ± 14.3), and brain (29.4 ± 5.1), and the effective dose was significantly higher (20%) than after intravenous administration (P = 0.002). Conclusion: ¹⁸F-FDG has excellent bioavailability after oral administration, but peak organ activities occur later than after intravenous injection. These data suggest PET at 2 h after oral ¹⁸F-FDG administration should yield images that are comparable in biodistribution to conventional clinical images acquired 1 h after injection. Oral ¹⁸F-FDG is a palatable alternative to intravenous ¹⁸F-FDG when venous access is problematic.

Quantification of 18FDG in the Normal Colon-A First Step in Investigating Whether Its Presence Is a Marker of a Physiological Process

The visibility of the colon in positron emission tomography (PET) scans of patients without gastrointestinal disease indicating the presence of ¹⁸F Fluorodeoxyglucose (¹⁸FDG) is well recognised, but unquantified and unexplained. In this paper a qualitative scoring system was applied to PET scans from 30 randomly selected patients without gastrointestinal disease to detect the presence of ¹⁸FDG in 4 different sections of the colon and then both the total pixel value and the pixel value per unit length of each section of the colon were determined to quantify the amount of ¹⁸FDG from a randomly selected subset of 10 of these patients. Analysis of the qualitative scores using a non-parametric ANOVA showed that all sections of the colon contained ¹⁸FDG but there were differences in the amount of ¹⁸FDG present between sections (p<0.05). Wilcoxon matched-pair signed-rank tests between pairs of segments showed statistically significant differences between all pairs (p<0.05) with the exception of the caecum and ascending colon and the descending colon. The same non-parametric statistical analysis of the quantitative measures showed no difference in the total amount of ¹⁸FDG between sections (p>0.05), but a difference in the amount/unit length between sections (p<0.01) with only the caecum and ascending colon and the descending colon having a statistically significant difference (p<0.05). These results are consistent since the eye is drawn to focal localisation of the ¹⁸FDG when qualitatively scoring the scans. The presence of ¹⁸FDG in the colon is counterintuitive since it must be passing from the blood to the lumen through the colonic wall. There is no active mechanism to achieve this and therefore we hypothesise that the transport is a passive process driven by the concentration gradient of ¹⁸FDG across the colonic wall. This hypothesis is consistent with the results obtained from the qualitative and quantitative measures analysed.