Key result
On dual-time-point FDG PET scanning, 76% of hypermetabolic brown fat spots demonstrated an increase in SUVmax (mean increase 42%), mimicking malignant lesions.
Why the study?
Does dual-time-point FDG PET scanning help differentiate brown fat from malignant lesions?
Observational (n=32)
Does dual-time-point FDG PET scanning help differentiate brown fat from malignant lesions?
Dual-time-point FDG PET scanning shows a progressive increase in FDG uptake in most brown fat areas, which mimics malignant lesions and limits its utility for differentiation.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Dual-time-point FDG PET may not differentiate brown fat from malignancy; leaves open need for alternative strategies in oncologic imaging.
OBJECTIVES: Brown fat is a potential source of false-positive findings on FDG PET. The purpose of this study was to show the variability in body distribution of brown fat, the degree of FDG uptake, the changes on dual-time-point scanning, and determine if dual-time-point scanning can help in differentiating brown fat from malignant lesions. METHODS: Thirty-two patients were included in this retrospective study (14 male, 18 female, age range: 8-72 years). All patients had hypermetabolic brown fat activity on FDG PET imaging confirmed by computed tomography (CT) scanning. All patients underwent 2 sequential FDG PET scanning (dual-time-point imaging). The average percent change in maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) for 120 brown fat spots between time point 1 and time point 2 was calculated. RESULTS: Body distribution of hypermetabolic brown fat in the 32 patients included supraclavicular area (n = 7); cervical and supraclavicular (n = 5); cervical, supraclavicular, and axillae (n = 5); cervical area, supraclavicular, axillae, and paravertebral (n = 8); supraclavicular, cervical, axillae, paravertebral, and mediastinum (n = 4); supraclavicular, cervical, axillae, paravertebral, and upper abdomen (n = 2); and supraclavicular, cervical, axillae, paravertebral, mediastinum, and intercostals (n = 1). SUVmax for brown fat spots ranged from 0.8 to 12.4 and mean SUV was 4.6 + 1.6. On dual-time-point imaging, 91 (76%) of the brown fat spots demonstrated an increase in SUVmax that ranged from 12% to 192% and mean value of 42%, whereas 16 (13%) brown fat spots did not show any change and 11 (11%) spots underwent a drop in SUVmax by 4% to 12%. There was an increase in the number of active brown fat spots in 3 patients on the second time images. CONCLUSIONS: Brown fat is a potential source of false positives, which has wide variability in distribution and degree of FDG uptake. On dual-time-point scanning, there is a progressive increase in FDG uptake within most of the hypermetabolic brown fat areas that mimic malignant lesions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Alkhawaldeh et al. (2008) conducted an observational in Hypermetabolic brown fat activity on FDG PET imaging (n=32). Dual-time-point FDG PET scanning was evaluated on Change in maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) for brown fat spots between time point 1 and time point 2. On dual-time-point FDG PET scanning, 76% of hypermetabolic brown fat spots demonstrated an increase in SUVmax (mean increase 42%), mimicking malignant lesions.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: