Evaluation of the Effects of Oral Water and Low-density Barium Sulphate Suspension on Bowel Appearance on FDG-PET/CT

Overview

Journal Eur Radiol

Specialty Radiology

Date 2009 Aug 15

PMID 19680659

Citations 5

Authors

Michael A Blake

Bindu N Setty

Carmel G Cronin

Mannudeep Kalra

Nagaraj Setty Holalkere

Alan J Fischman

Peter R Mueller

Dushyant V Sahani

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to assess which of five bowel preparation regimes offers superior bowel distension and to assess if these regimes adversely affect FDG activity on PET/CT imaging. The study conformed to HIPAA regulations. Ninety patients were divided into five groups of 18 who received no oral contrast agent (group A); 900 ml of water orally (group B); or 900, 1,350, or 1,800 ml of LDB (groups C, D, E, respectively). PET/CT examinations were assessed quantitatively (bowel diameter, SUV) and qualitatively (visual assessment grading scale) for bowel distension and FDG activity by two blinded readers. ANOVA was utilized to determine if a statistically significant difference (SSD) existed between the groups in terms of distension and FDG uptake. Qualitatively superior bowel distension was observed in group C (LDB) compared to B (water) and greater distension was noted with increased volumes of LDB in C, D, and E. Quantitatively there was an SSD in mean distension between groups C and B (P < 0.001 except duodenum). Qualitatively and quantitatively there was no significant difference in bowel FDG uptake among the groups (P > 0.05). LDB as an oral contrast agent provides superior bowel distension over water and does not induce increased FDG bowel activity.

Citing Articles

Comprehensive literature review of oral and intravenous contrast-enhanced PET/CT: a step forward?.

Metrard G, Cohen C, Bailly M Front Med (Lausanne). 2024; 11:1373260.

PMID: 38566921 PMC: 10985176. DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2024.1373260.

Utility of negative oral contrast (milk with 4% fat) in PET-CT studies.

Meyer S, Gawde S Indian J Nucl Med. 2013; 27(3):151-5.

PMID: 23919067 PMC: 3728735. DOI: 10.4103/0972-3919.112719.

Utility of positron emission tomography/CT in the evaluation of small bowel pathology.

Cronin C, Scott J, Kambadakone A, Catalano O, Sahani D, Blake M Br J Radiol. 2012; 85(1017):1211-21.

PMID: 22919004 PMC: 3487051. DOI: 10.1259/bjr/64534573.

Molecular imaging in oncology: the acceptance of PET/CT and the emergence of MR/PET imaging.

Schiepers C, Dahlbom M Eur Radiol. 2010; 21(3):548-54.

PMID: 21174096 PMC: 3032196. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-010-2033-y.

MDCT appearance of the appendix: how does the low-density barium sulfate oral contrast agent affect it?.

Yaghmai V, Aghaei-Lasboo A, Brandwein W, Tochetto S, Mafi J, Miller F Emerg Radiol. 2010; 18(1):11-5.

PMID: 20683631 DOI: 10.1007/s10140-010-0894-7.

References

Antoch G, Jentzen W, Freudenberg L, Stattaus J, Mueller S, Debatin J . Effect of oral contrast agents on computed tomography-based positron emission tomography attenuation correction in dual-modality positron emission tomography/computed tomography imaging. Invest Radiol. 2003; 38(12):784-9. DOI: 10.1097/01.rli.0000091651.69227.48. View

Megibow A, Babb J, Hecht E, Cho J, Houston C, Boruch M . Evaluation of bowel distention and bowel wall appearance by using neutral oral contrast agent for multi-detector row CT. Radiology. 2005; 238(1):87-95. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2381041985. View

Antoch G, Kuehl H, Kanja J, Lauenstein T, Schneemann H, Hauth E . Dual-modality PET/CT scanning with negative oral contrast agent to avoid artifacts: introduction and evaluation. Radiology. 2004; 230(3):879-85. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2303021287. View

Agress Jr H, Cooper B . Detection of clinically unexpected malignant and premalignant tumors with whole-body FDG PET: histopathologic comparison. Radiology. 2003; 230(2):417-22. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2302021685. View

Winter T, Ager J, Nghiem H, Hill R, Harrison S, Freeny P . Upper gastrointestinal tract and abdomen: water as an orally administered contrast agent for helical CT. Radiology. 1996; 201(2):365-70. DOI: 10.1148/radiology.201.2.8888224. View

Hebert J, Taylor A, Winter T, Reichelderfer M, Weichert J . Low-attenuation oral GI contrast agents in abdominal-pelvic computed tomography. Abdom Imaging. 2005; 31(1):48-53. DOI: 10.1007/s00261-005-0350-4. View

Groves A, Kayani I, Dickson J, Townsend C, Croasdale I, Syed R . Oral contrast medium in PET/CT: should you or shouldn't you?. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2005; 32(10):1160-6. DOI: 10.1007/s00259-005-1833-9. View

Drenth J, Nagengast F, Oyen W . Evaluation of (pre-)malignant colonic abnormalities: endoscopic validation of FDG-PET findings. Eur J Nucl Med. 2001; 28(12):1766-9. DOI: 10.1007/s002590100645. View

THOMPSON S, Raptopoulos V, Sheiman R, McNicholas M, Prassopoulos P . Abdominal helical CT: milk as a low-attenuation oral contrast agent. Radiology. 1999; 211(3):870-5. DOI: 10.1148/radiology.211.3.r99jn25870. View

10.

Gutman F, Alberini J, Wartski M, Vilain D, Le Stanc E, Sarandi F . Incidental colonic focal lesions detected by FDG PET/CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005; 185(2):495-500. DOI: 10.2214/ajr.185.2.01850495. View

11.

Otsuka H, Graham M, Kubo A, Nishitani H . The effect of oral contrast on large bowel activity in FDG-PET/CT. Ann Nucl Med. 2005; 19(2):101-8. DOI: 10.1007/BF03027388. View

12.

Dizendorf E, Treyer V, von Schulthess G, Hany T . Application of oral contrast media in coregistered positron emission tomography-CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002; 179(2):477-81. DOI: 10.2214/ajr.179.2.1790477. View

13.

Antoch G, Freudenberg L, Stattaus J, Jentzen W, Mueller S, Debatin J . Whole-body positron emission tomography-CT: optimized CT using oral and IV contrast materials. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002; 179(6):1555-60. DOI: 10.2214/ajr.179.6.1791555. View

14.

Cohade C, Osman M, Nakamoto Y, Marshall L, Links J, Fishman E . Initial experience with oral contrast in PET/CT: phantom and clinical studies. J Nucl Med. 2003; 44(3):412-6. View

15.

Hausegger K, Reinprecht P, Kau T, Igerc I, Lind P . Clinical experience with a commercially available negative oral contrast medium in PET/CT. Rofo. 2005; 177(6):796-9. DOI: 10.1055/s-2005-858197. View

16.

Faulhaber , Nelson , Mehta , ODonnell . 24. The Fusion of Anatomic and Physiologic Tomographic Images to Enhance Accurate Interpretation. Clin Positron Imaging. 2001; 3(4):178. DOI: 10.1016/s1095-0397(00)00090-x. View

17.

Kluetz P, Meltzer C, Villemagne V, Kinahan P, Chander S, Martinelli M . Combined PET/CT Imaging in Oncology. Impact on Patient Management. Clin Positron Imaging. 2001; 3(6):223-230. DOI: 10.1016/s1095-0397(01)00055-3. View

18.

Hamm B . Contrast materials for cross-sectional imaging of the abdomen. Curr Opin Radiol. 1992; 4(3):93-104. View

19.

Sahani D, Jhaveri K, DSouza R, Varghese J, Halpern E, Harisinghani M . Evaluation of simethicone-coated cellulose as a negative oral contrast agent for abdominal CT. Acad Radiol. 2003; 10(5):491-6. DOI: 10.1016/s1076-6332(03)80057-0. View