Characterization of glucose uptake metabolism in visceral fat by 18 F-FDG PET/CT reflects inflammatory status in metabolic syndrome

Figures

• 

  Fig 1. Flow chart of participant selection. CVD, cardiovascular disease; HTN, hypertension; DM, diabetes mellitus; NCEP ATP III, National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III.

• 

  Fig 2. Representative examples of maximum intensity projection 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) images showing increased bone marrow (BM) and spleen uptakes in (B) metabolic syndrome (MS) patient compared to (A) M(0) participants. A comparison of the maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) of the spleen (C) and the SUVmax of the BM (D) according to the number of MS components. M(0), n = 59; M(1–2), n = 92; MS, n = 52. M(0), no MS components; M(1–2), participants with one or two MS components; MS, three of more MS components. P-values were determined using ANOVA with post-hoc Tukey test. ##p ≤ 0.01; M(0) vs. MS, ###p ≤ 0.001; M(0) vs. MS. §§p ≤ 0.01; M(1–2) vs. MS, §§§p ≤ 0.001; M(1–2) vs. MS.

• 

  Fig 3. Representative images of 18F-FDG PET/CT analysis of VAT and SAT of a MS patient (A-C) and a M(0) patient (D-F). Transaxial CT images at the level of the L4 vertebrae were acquired in both MS and M(0) patients (A and D). Transaxial 18F-FDG images corresponding to the above transaxial CT images were acquired (B and E). Magnified 18F-FDG images of VAT in both MS and M(0) patients (C and F). SUVs are displayed in a color scale indicating high (red) to low (black) FDG uptake. Different FDG uptake pattern of the VAT region is observed between the MS and the M(0) patients. In the VAT region, MS patient exhibits a large portion of relatively lower FDG uptake area and a small portion of relatively higher FDG uptake area than those of M(0) patient.

• 

  Fig 4. Comparison of (A) VAT SUVmax, (B) VAT SUVmean, (C) SAT SUVmax, and (D) SAT SUVmean according to the number of MS components. M(0), n = 59; M(1–2), n = 92; MS, n = 52. P-values were determined using ANOVA with post-hoc Tukey test. #p ≤ 0.05; M(0) vs. MS. §p ≤ 0.05; M(1–2) vs. MS. **p ≤ 0.01; M(0) vs. M(1–2), ***p ≤ 0.001; M(0) vs. M(1–2).