[¹⁸F]FDG-PET Evaluation of Spinal Pathology in Patients in Oncology: Pearls and Pitfalls for the Neuroradiologist

References

1. 1.↵
   1. Alavi A,
   2. Hess S,
   3. Werner TJ, et al

   . An update on the unparalleled impact of FDG PET imaging on the day-to-day practice of medicine with emphasis on management of infectious/inflammatory disorders. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2020;47:18–27 doi:10.1007/s00259-019-04490-6 pmid:31482427

   CrossRefPubMed
2. 2.↵
   1. Shah LM,
   2. Salzman KL

   . Imaging of spinal metastatic disease. Int J Surg Oncol 2011;2011:769753 doi:10.1155/2011/769753 pmid:22312523

   CrossRefPubMed
3. 3.↵
   1. Batouli A,
   2. Braun J,
   3. Singh K, et al

   . Diagnosis of non-osseous spinal metastatic disease: the role of PET/CT and PET/MRI. J Neurooncol 2018;138:221–30 doi:10.1007/s11060-018-2794-8 pmid:29484521

   CrossRefPubMed
4. 4.↵
   1. Bhatt G,
   2. Li XF,
   3. Jain A, et al

   . The normal variant (18)F FDG uptake in the lower thoracic spinal cord segments in cancer patients without CNS malignancy. Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2013;3:317–25 pmid:23901357

   PubMed
5. 5.↵
   1. Buyukdereli G,
   2. Kara E,
   3. Guler M, et al

   . Evaluation of visible physiological F-18 FDG uptake patterns in spinal cord on PET/CT. Neurosurgery Quarterly 2015;25:403–06 doi:10.1097/WNQ.0000000000000073

   CrossRef
6. 6.↵
   1. Do BH,
   2. Mari C,
   3. Tseng JR, et al

   . Pattern of 18F-FDG uptake in the spinal cord in patients with non-central nervous system malignancy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2011;36:E1395–401 doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e31820a7df8 pmid:21311407

   CrossRefPubMed
7. 7.↵
   1. Amin A,
   2. Rosenbaum SJ,
   3. Bockisch A

   . Physiological ¹⁸F-FDG uptake by the spinal cord: is it a point of consideration for cancer patients? J Neurooncol May 2012;107:609–15 doi:10.1007/s11060-011-0785-0 pmid:22249691

   CrossRefPubMed
8. 8.↵
   1. Shen G,
   2. Liang M,
   3. Su M, et al

   . Physiological uptake of 18F-FDG in the vertebral bone marrow in healthy adults on PET/CT imaging. Acta Radiol 2018;59:1487–93 doi:10.1177/0284185118762245 pmid:29486597

   CrossRefPubMed
9. 9.↵
   1. Su M,
   2. Xu D,
   3. Li F, et al

   . Pattern of variable physiological 18F-FDG uptake at various levels in the spine on 18F-FDG PET/CT. J Nucl Med 2016;57(Suppl 2):1756
10. 10.↵
    1. Kazama T,
    2. Faria SC,
    3. Varavithya V, et al

    . FDG PET in the evaluation of treatment for lymphoma: clinical usefulness and pitfalls. Radiographics 2005;25:191–207 doi:10.1148/rg.251045045 pmid:15653595

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
11. 11.↵
    1. Lin EC,
    2. Alavi A

    . PET and PET/CT: A Clinical Guide. 2nd ed. Thieme; 2009
12. 12.↵
    1. Hanaoka K,
    2. Hosono M,
    3. Usami K, et al

    . Fluorodeoxyglucose uptake in the bone marrow after granulocyte colony-stimulating factor administration in patients with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Nucl Med Commun 2011;32:678–83 doi:10.1097/MNM.0b013e328346b32a pmid:21499162

    CrossRefPubMed
13. 13.↵
    1. Ulaner GA,
    2. Lyall A

    . Identifying and distinguishing treatment effects and complications from malignancy at FDG PET/CT. Radiographics 2013;33:1817–34 doi:10.1148/rg.336125105 pmid:24108564

    CrossRefPubMed
14. 14.↵
    1. Kesner AL,
    2. Lau VK,
    3. Speiser M, et al

    . Time-course of effects of external beam radiation on [18F]FDG uptake in healthy tissue and bone marrow. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2008;9:147–56 doi:10.1120/jacmp.v9i3.2747 pmid:18716585

    CrossRefPubMed
15. 15.↵
    1. Metser U,
    2. Lerman H,
    3. Blank A, et al

    . Malignant involvement of the spine: assessment by 18F-FDG PET/CT. J Nucl Med 2004;45:279–84 pmid:14960648

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
16. 16.↵
    1. Rose PS,
    2. Buchowski JM

    . Metastatic disease in the thoracic and lumbar spine: evaluation and management. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2011;19:37–48 doi:10.5435/00124635-201101000-00005 pmid:21205766

    CrossRefPubMed
17. 17.↵
    1. Ali SA,
    2. Ibrahim Y,
    3. Elkhalek A

    . Added value of combined 18F-FDG PET/CT for detection of osseous metastases in cancer patients. Egypt J Radiol Nucl Med 2016;47:453–58 doi:10.1016/j.ejrnm.2016.03.006

    CrossRef
18. 18.↵
    1. Uchida K,
    2. Nakajima H,
    3. Miyazaki T, et al

    . (18)F-FDG PET/CT for diagnosis of osteosclerotic and osteolytic vertebral metastatic lesions: comparison with bone scintigraphy. Asian Spine J 2013;7:96–103 doi:10.4184/asj.2013.7.2.96 pmid:23741546

    CrossRefPubMed
19. 19.↵
    1. Woolf DK,
    2. Padhani AR,
    3. Makris A

    . Assessing response to treatment of bone metastases from breast cancer: what should be the standard of care? Ann Oncol 2015;26:1048–57 doi:10.1093/annonc/mdu558 pmid:25471332

    CrossRefPubMed
20. 20.↵
    1. Lecouvet FE,
    2. Larbi A,
    3. Pasoglou V, et al

    . MRI for response assessment in metastatic bone disease. Eur Radiol 2013;23:1986–97 doi:10.1007/s00330-013-2792-3 pmid:23455764

    CrossRefPubMed
21. 21.↵
    1. Mavrogenis AF,
    2. Pneumaticos S,
    3. Sapkas GS, et al

    . Metastatic epidural spinal cord compression. Orthopedics 2009;32:431–39 doi:10.3928/01477447-20090511-20 pmid:19634817

    CrossRefPubMed
22. 22.↵
    1. Ho L,
    2. Valenzuela D,
    3. Negahban A, et al

    . Primary spinal epidural non-Hodgkin lymphoma demonstrated by FDG PET/CT. Clin Nucl Med 2010;35:487–89 doi:10.1097/RLU.0b013e3181e05f6e pmid:20548138

    CrossRefPubMed
23. 23.↵
    1. Watakabe T,
    2. Toya R,
    3. Saito T, et al

    . High spatial resolution digital positron emission tomography images with dedicated source-to-background algorithm for radiotherapy planning. Anticancer Res 2020;40:2567–72 doi:10.21873/anticanres.14227 pmid:32366401

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
24. 24.↵
    1. Rykken JB,
    2. Diehn FE,
    3. Hunt CH, et al

    . Intramedullary spinal cord metastases: MRI and relevant clinical features from a 13-year institutional case series. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2013;34:2043–49 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A3526 pmid:23620071

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
25. 25.↵
    1. Pellegrini D,
    2. Quezel MA,
    3. Bruetman JE

    . Intramedullary spinal cord metastasis. Arch Neurol 2009;66:1422 doi:10.1001/archneurol.2009.245 pmid:19901180

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
26. 26.↵
    1. Mostardi PM,
    2. Diehn FE,
    3. Rykken JB, et al

    . Intramedullary spinal cord metastases: visibility on PET and correlation with MRI features. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2014;35:196–201 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A3618 pmid:23886743

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
27. 27.↵
    1. Tomura N,
    2. Ito Y,
    3. Matsuoka H, et al

    . PET findings of intramedullary tumors of the spinal cord using [18F] FDG and [11C] methionine. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2013;34:1278–83 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A3374 pmid:23275592

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
28. 28.↵
    1. Farin A,
    2. Aryan HE,
    3. Abshire BB

    . Thymoma metastatic to the extradural spine. J Clin Neurosci 2005;12:824–27 doi:10.1016/j.jocn.2004.09.028 pmid:16198922

    CrossRefPubMed
29. 29.↵
    1. Shah S,
    2. Rangarajan V,
    3. Purandare N, et al

    . 18F-FDG uptakes in leptomeningeal metastases from carcinoma of the breast on a positron emission tomography/computerized tomography study. Indian J Cancer 2007;44:115–18 doi:10.4103/0019-509x.38944 pmid:18250534

    CrossRefPubMed
30. 30.↵
    1. Papasozomenos H,
    2. Guha-Thakurta N,
    3. Mayer RR, et al

    . Association between (18)F-FDG PET/CT and MRI appearance of spinal leptomeningeal disease before and after treatment at a tertiary referral center. J Solid Tumors 2016;6:1–8 doi:10.5430/jst.v6n1p1 pmid:30637037

    CrossRefPubMed
31. 31.↵
    1. Paes FM,
    2. Singer AD,
    3. Checkver AN, et al

    . Perineural spread in head and neck malignancies: clinical significance and evaluation with 18F-FDG PET/CT. Radiographics 2013;33:1717–36 doi:10.1148/rg.336135501 pmid:24108559

    CrossRefPubMed
32. 32.↵
    1. Liebig C,
    2. Ayala G,
    3. Wilks JA, et al

    . Perineural invasion in cancer: a review of the literature. Cancer 2009;115:3379–91 doi:10.1002/cncr.24396 pmid:19484787

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
33. 33.↵
    1. Maroldi R,
    2. Farina D,
    3. Borghesi A, et al

    . Perineural tumor spread. Neuroimaging Clin N Am 2008;18:413–29 doi:10.1016/j.nic.2008.01.001 pmid:18466839

    CrossRefPubMed
34. 34.↵
    1. Sherif M,
    2. Dawoud M,
    3. Nagy H, et al

    . Diagnostic accuracy of 18-F FDG PET/CT in evaluation of malignant neuronal involvement in neurologically manifested cancer patients. Egypt J Radiol Nucl Med 2018;49:453–60 doi:10.1016/j.ejrnm.2018.03.002

    CrossRef
35. 35.↵
    1. Lee H,
    2. Lazor JW,
    3. Assadsangabi R, et al

    . An imager’s guide to perineural tumor spread in head and neck cancers: radiologic footprints on (18)F-FDG PET, with CT and MRI correlates. J Nucl Med 2019;60:304–11 doi:10.2967/jnumed.118.214312 pmid:30291196

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
36. 36.↵
    1. Kirchner J,
    2. Schaarschmidt BM,
    3. Sauerwein W, et al

    . (18) F-FDG PET/MRI vs MRI in patients with recurrent adenoid cystic carcinoma. Head Neck 2019;41:170–76 doi:10.1002/hed.25485 pmid:30548894

    CrossRefPubMed
37. 37.↵
    1. Costelloe CM,
    2. Murphy WA Jr.,
    3. Chasen BA

    . Musculoskeletal pitfalls in 18F-FDG PET/CT: pictorial review. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009;193:WS1–13 doi:10.2214/AJR.07.7138 pmid:19696250

    CrossRefPubMed
38. 38.↵
    1. White ML,
    2. Johnson GB,
    3. Howe BM, et al

    . Spectrum of benign articular and periarticular findings at FDG PET/CT. Radiographics 2016;36:824–39 doi:10.1148/rg.2016150100 pmid:27163594

    CrossRefPubMed
39. 39.↵
    1. Zhuang H,
    2. Sam JW,
    3. Chacko TK, et al

    . Rapid normalization of osseous FDG uptake following traumatic or surgical fractures. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2003;30:1096–103 doi:10.1007/s00259-003-1198-x pmid:12761597

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
40. 40.↵
    1. Rosen RS,
    2. Fayad L,
    3. Wahl RL

    . Increased 18F-FDG uptake in degenerative disease of the spine: characterization with 18F-FDG PET/CT. J Nucl Med 2006;47:1274–80 pmid:16883005

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
41. 41.↵
    1. Bredella MA,
    2. Steinbach L,
    3. Caputo G, et al

    . Value of FDG PET in the assessment of patients with multiple myeloma. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005;184:1199–204 doi:10.2214/ajr.184.4.01841199 pmid:15788594

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
42. 42.↵
    1. Zhang H,
    2. Lv J,
    3. Lv C, et al

    . Presentation of multiple myeloma mimicking bone metastasis from colon adenocarcinoma: a case report and literature review. Mol Clin Oncol 2016;4:31–34 doi:10.3892/mco.2015.650 pmid:26870352

    CrossRefPubMed
43. 43.↵
    1. Bybel B,
    2. Raja S

    . Vertebral hemangiomas on FDG PET scan. Clin Nucl Med 2003;28:522–23 doi:10.1097/01.RLU.0000067523.94735.3C pmid:12917545

    CrossRefPubMed
44. 44.↵
    1. Solav SV,
    2. Savale SV,
    3. Patil AM

    . False-positive FDG PET CT scan in vertebral hemangioma. Asia Ocean J Nucl Med Biol 2019;7:95–98 doi:10.22038/AOJNMB.2018.12010 pmid:30705916

    CrossRefPubMed
45. 45.↵
    1. Nakayama M,
    2. Okizaki A,
    3. Ishitoya S, et al

    . “Hot” vertebra on (18)F-FDG PET scan: a case of vertebral hemangioma. Clin Nucl Med 2012;37:1190–93 doi:10.1097/RLU.0b013e3182708628 pmid:23154481

    CrossRefPubMed
46. 46.↵
    1. Boré P,
    2. Descourt R,
    3. Ollivier L, et al

    . False positive 18F-FDG positron emission tomography findings in schwannoma-a caution for reporting physicians. Front Med (Lausanne) 2018;5:275 doi:10.3389/fmed.2018.00275 pmid:30349818

    CrossRefPubMed
47. 47.↵
    1. Beaulieu S,
    2. Rubin B,
    3. Djang D, et al

    . Positron emission tomography of schwannomas: emphasizing its potential in preoperative planning. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2004;182:971–74 doi:10.2214/ajr.182.4.1820971 pmid:15039173

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
48. 48.↵
    1. Gemmel F,
    2. Rijk PC,
    3. Collins JM, et al

    . Expanding role of 18F-fluoro-D-deoxyglucose PET and PET/CT in spinal infections. Eur Spine J 2010;19:540–51 doi:10.1007/s00586-009-1251-y pmid:20052505

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
49. 49.↵
    1. Burrill J,
    2. Williams CJ,
    3. Bain G, et al

    . Tuberculosis: a radiologic review. Radiographics 2007;27:1255–73 doi:10.1148/rg.275065176 pmid:17848689

    CrossRefPubMed
50. 50.↵
    1. Hoetjes NJ,
    2. van Velden FH,
    3. Hoekstra OS, et al

    . Partial volume correction strategies for quantitative FDG PET in oncology. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2010;37:1679–87 doi:10.1007/s00259-010-1472-7 pmid:20422184

    CrossRefPubMed
51. 51.↵
    1. Bai B,
    2. Bading J,
    3. Conti PS

    . Tumor quantification in clinical positron emission tomography. Theranostics 2013;3:787–801 doi:10.7150/thno.5629 pmid:24312151

    CrossRefPubMed
52. 52.↵
    1. Chen S,
    2. He K,
    3. Feng F, et al

    . Metabolic tumor burden on baseline (18)F-FDG PET/CT improves risk stratification in pediatric patients with mature B-cell lymphoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2019;46:1830–39 doi:10.1007/s00259-019-04363-y pmid:31187163

    CrossRefPubMed
53. 53.↵
    1. Vallius T,
    2. Hynninen J,
    3. Kemppainen J, et al

    . (18)F-FDG PET/CT based total metabolic tumor volume change during neoadjuvant chemotherapy predicts outcome in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2018;45:1224–32 doi:10.1007/s00259-018-3961-z pmid:29476227

    CrossRefPubMed
54. 54.↵
    1. Rogasch JM,
    2. Steffen IG,
    3. Hofheinz F, et al

    . The association of tumor-to-background ratios and SUVmax deviations related to point spread function and time-of-flight F18-FDG PET/CT reconstruction in colorectal liver metastases. EJNMMI Res 2015;5:31 doi:10.1186/s13550-015-0111-5 pmid:25992306

    CrossRefPubMed
55. 55.↵
    1. Ziai P,
    2. Hayeri MR,
    3. Salei A, et al

    . Role of optimal quantification of FDG PET imaging in the clinical practice of radiology. Radiographics 2016;36:481–96 doi:10.1148/rg.2016150102 pmid:26963458

    CrossRefPubMed
56. 56.↵
    1. Burger IA,
    2. Huser DM,
    3. Burger C, et al

    . Repeatability of FDG quantification in tumor imaging: averaged SUVs are superior to SUVmax. Nucl Med Biol 2012;39:666–70 doi:10.1016/j.nucmedbio.2011.11.002 pmid:22381783

    CrossRefPubMed
57. 57.↵
    1. Brito AE,
    2. Mourato F,
    3. Santos A, et al

    . Validation of the semiautomatic quantification of (18)F-fluoride PET/CT whole-body skeletal tumor burden. J Nucl Med Technol Technol 2018;46:378–33 doi:10.2967/jnmt.118.211474 pmid:30076246

    CrossRefPubMed
58. 58.↵
    1. Froelich JW,
    2. Salavati A

    . Artificial intelligence in PET/CT is about to make whole-body tumor burden measurements a clinical reality. Radiology 2020;294:453–54 doi:10.1148/radiol.2019192425 pmid:31825291

    CrossRefPubMed
59. 59.↵
    1. Tan H,
    2. Gu Y,
    3. Yu H, et al

    . Total-body PET/CT: current applications and future perspectives. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2020;215:325–37 doi:10.2214/AJR.19.22705 pmid:32551910

    CrossRefPubMed
60. 60.↵
    1. Badawi RD,
    2. Shi H,
    3. Hu P, et al

    . First human imaging studies with the EXPLORER total-body PET scanner. J Nucl Med 2019;60:299–303 doi:10.2967/jnumed.119.226498 pmid:30733314

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
61. 61.↵
    1. Vandenberghe S,
    2. Moskal P,
    3. Karp JS

    . State of the art in total body PET. EJNMMI Phys 2020;7:35 doi:10.1186/s40658-020-00290-2 pmid:32451783

    CrossRefPubMed