Clinical Imaging
Volume 34, Issue 5 , Pages 348-350, September 2010

Impact of age on FDG uptake in the liver on PET scan

  • Chun-Yi Lin

      Affiliations

    • Department of Nuclear Medicine, Show Chwan Memorial Hospital, Changhua, Taiwan
  • ,
  • Hueisch-Jy Ding

      Affiliations

    • Department of Medical Imaging and Radiological Sciences, I-Shou University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan
  • ,
  • Cheng-Chieh Lin

      Affiliations

    • Department of Community Medicine and Health Examination Center, China Medical University Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan
    • School of Medicine, China Medical University, Taichung, Taiwan
  • ,
  • Cheng-Chieh Chen

      Affiliations

    • Department of Community Medicine and Health Examination Center, China Medical University Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan
  • ,
  • Shung-Shung Sun

      Affiliations

    • Department of Biomedical Imaging and Radiological Science, China Medical University, Taichung, Taiwan
    • Department of Nuclear Medicine and PET Center, China Medical University Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan
    • S. S. Sun and C. H. Kao contributed equally to this work.
  • ,
  • Chia-Hung Kao

      Affiliations

    • School of Medicine, China Medical University, Taichung, Taiwan
    • Department of Nuclear Medicine and PET Center, China Medical University Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Department of Nuclear Medicine and PET Center, China Medical University Hospital, No. 2, Yuh-Der Road, Taichung 404, Taiwan. Tel.: +886 4 22052121x7412; fax.: +886 4 22336174.
    • S. S. Sun and C. H. Kao contributed equally to this work.

Received 20 September 2009; accepted 4 November 2009. published online 11 January 2010.

Abstract 

Purpose

The intensity of physiological 18F-2-deoxy-D-glucose (FDG) uptake in the liver varies. It is important to be familiar with the varying degree of FDG accumulation in the liver that represents normal distribution and physiological changes, before attempting to interpret whole-body positron emission tomography (PET) imaging for malignancy detection. The aim of this study is to evaluate the possible factors influencing the intensity of physiological FDG uptake in the liver on FDG PET imaging.

Materials and Methods

From 2005 to 2007, a total of 339 consecutive healthy subjects, referred from the Department of Community Medicine and Health Examination Center of our hospital for health screening, were retrospectively recruited for analysis. Demographic data were collected from chart records. Whole body FDG PET imaging and serologic determination of hepatitis B virus (HBV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection status were performed on all subjects. The mean and maximum standard uptake values (SUVs) of the liver were calculated. The relationships between sex, age, HBV and HCV infection status, and SUVmax and SUVmean of the liver on FDG PET imaging were evaluated.

Results

There was no statistically significant relationship between sex, HBV and HCV infection status and maximum standard uptake value (SUVmax) or mean standard uptake value (SUVmean) of the liver. After adjusting for covariables, age was a statistically significant predictor of SUVmax (B=0.18; P= .001) and SUVmean (B=0.16; P= .004) of the liver on FDG PET imaging.

Conclusion

Age has a significant and positive impact on both maximum and mean standard uptake values of the liver on FDG PET imaging. High physiological background FDG uptake will reduce diagnostic sensitivity and accuracy for malignancy detection in the liver.

Keywords: Whole-body PET imaging, Standard uptake values

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

PII: S0899-7071(09)00305-2

doi:10.1016/j.clinimag.2009.11.003

Clinical Imaging
Volume 34, Issue 5 , Pages 348-350, September 2010