Difference in F-18 FDG Uptake After Esophagogastroduodenoscopy and Colonoscopy in Healthy Sedated Subjects
10.1007/s13139-016-0460-7
- Author:
Jong Ryool OH
1
;
Ji Hyoung SEO
;
Woo Jin CHANG
;
Seung Il BAE
;
In Wook SONG
;
Jin Gu BONG
;
Hye Yeon JEONG
;
So Young PARK
;
Jeongyup BAE
;
Hyundae YOON
Author Information
1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Raphael Hospital, Daegu, Republic of Korea.
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Colonoscopy;
Endoscopy;
Esophagogastroduodenoscopy;
FDGPET/CT
- MeSH:
Anal Canal;
Cecum;
Colon;
Colonoscopy;
Duodenum;
Electrons;
Endoscopy;
Endoscopy, Digestive System;
Epiglottis;
Esophagus;
Healthy Volunteers;
Larynx;
Liver;
Mass Screening;
Pharynx;
Positron-Emission Tomography and Computed Tomography;
Rectum;
Stomach;
Tongue;
Uvula;
Vocal Cords
- From:Korean Journal of Nuclear Medicine
2017;51(3):240-246
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: We aimed to evaluate the difference in fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) uptake in sedated healthy subjects after they underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and colonoscopy procedures.METHODS: The endoscopy group (n = 29) included healthy subjects who underwent screening via F-18 FDG positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) after an EGD and/or colonoscopy under sedation on the same day. The control group (n = 35) included healthy subjects who underwent screening via PET/CT only. FDG uptake in the tongue, uvula, epiglottis, vocal cords, esophagus, stomach, duodenum, liver, cecum, colon, anus, and muscle were compared between the two groups.RESULTS: Maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) in the tongue, pharynx, larynx, and esophagus did not significantly differ between the endoscopy and control groups. In contrast, mean SUVmax in the whole stomach was 18 % higher in the endoscopy group than in the control group (SUVmax: 2.96 vs. 2.51, P = 0.010). In the lower gastrointestinal track, SUVmax from the cecum to the rectum was not significantly different between the two groups, whereas SUVmax in the anus was 20% higher in the endoscopy group than in the control group (SUVmax: 4.21 vs. 3.50, P = 0.002). SUVmax in the liver and muscle was not significantly different between the two groups. Mean volume of the stomach and mean cross section of the colon was significantly higher in the endoscopy group than in the control group (stomach: 313.28 cm³ vs. 209.93 cm³, P < 0.001, colon: 8.82 cm² vs. 5.98 cm², P = 0.001).CONCLUSIONS: EGD and colonoscopy under sedation does not lead to significant differences in SUVmax in most parts of the body. Only gastric FDG uptake in the EGD subjects and anal FDG uptake in the colonoscopy subjects was higher than uptake in those regions in the control subjects.
