METHODS: Nine subjects were injected intravenously with the mean (18)F-FDG dose of 292.42 MBq prior to whole body PET/CT scanning. Kidneys and urinary bladder doses were estimated by using two approaches which are the total injected activity of (18)F-FDG and organs activity concentration of (18)F-FDG based on drawn ROI with the application of recommended dose coefficients for (18)F-FDG described in the ICRP 80 and ICRP 106.
RESULTS: The mean percentage difference between calculated dose and measured dose ranged from 98.95% to 99.29% for the kidneys based on ICRP 80 and 98.96% to 99.32% based on ICRP 106. Whilst, the mean percentage difference between calculated dose and measured dose was 97.08% and 97.27% for urinary bladder based on ICRP 80 while 96.99% and 97.28% based on ICRP 106. Whereas, the range of mean percentage difference between calculated and measured organ doses derived from ICRP 106 and ICRP 80 for kidney doses were from 17.00% to 40.00% and for urinary bladder dose was 18.46% to 18.75%.
CONCLUSIONS: There is a significant difference between calculated dose and measured dose. The use of organ activity estimation based on drawn ROI and the latest version of ICRP 106 dose coefficient should be explored deeper to obtain accurate radiation dose to patients.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three populations were retrospectively examined. Group 1 included 1,137 consecutive18F-FDG PET/CT studies and was used to determine the prevalence of focal uptake at the RI or IC. Group 2 included 361 cases from a 10-year period with18F-FDG PET/CT and MRI of shoulder performed within 45 days of each other and was used to enrich the study group. Group 3 included 109 randomly selected patients from the same time frame as groups 1 and 2 and was used to generate the control group. The study group consisted of 15 cases from the three groups, which had positive PET findings. PET/CT images were assessed in consensus by two musculoskeletal radiologists. The reference standard for a diagnosis of AC was clinical and was made by review of the medical record by a pain medicine physician.
RESULTS: The prevalence of focal activity at either the RI or IC ("positive PET") was 0.53%. Nine patients had a clinical diagnosis of AC and 15 patients had a positive PET. The sensitivity and specificity of PET for detection of AC was 56% and 87%, respectively. PET/CT had a positive likelihood ratio for AC of 6.3 (95% CI: 2.8-14.6).
CONCLUSIONS: Increased uptake at the RI or IC on PET/CT confers a moderate increase in the likelihood of AC.