False‑positive 18F‑fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography in a patient with metallic implants following chondrosarcoma resection

Zhou,Pu; Tang,Jinliang; Zhang,Dong; Li,Guanghui

doi:10.3892/mco.2016.801

False‑positive 18F‑fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography in a patient with metallic implants following chondrosarcoma resection

Authors:
- Pu Zhou
- Jinliang Tang
- Dong Zhang
- Guanghui Li
View Affiliations

Affiliations: Institute for Cancer Research in People's Liberation Army, Xinqiao Hospital, Third Military Medical University, Chongqing 400037, P.R. China, Department of Radiology, Xinqiao Hospital, Third Military Medical University, Chongqing 400037, P.R. China, Department of Pathology, Xinqiao Hospital, Third Military Medical University, Chongqing 400037, P.R. China
Published online on: March 3, 2016 https://doi.org/10.3892/mco.2016.801
Pages: 830-832

Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Metrics: Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Cited By (CrossRef): 0 citations Loading Articles...

Abstract

Positron emission tomography (PET) with fluorine‑18‑labeled fluorodeoxyglucose (18F‑FDG) has been used for the staging and evaluation of recurrence in cancer patients. We herein report a false‑positive result of 18F‑FDG PET̸computed tomography (CT) scan in a patient following chondrosarcoma resection and metallic implanting. A 35‑year‑old male patient with chondrosarcoma of the left iliac bone underwent radical resection, metal brace implanting and radiotherapy. A high uptake of 18F‑FDG was observed in the metallic implants and adjacent tissue during PET/CT scanning in the 5th year of follow‑up. tissue biopsy and follow‑up examination identified no tumor recurrence or infection at these sites, suggesting that the results of 18F‑FDG PET̸CT must be interpreted with caution in cancer patients with metallic implants.

View Figures

View References

1	Farwell MD, Pryma DA and Mankoff DA: PET/CT imaging in cancer: Current applications and future directions. Cancer. 120:3433–3445. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
2	Gámez-Cenzano C and Pino-Sorroche F: Standardization and quantification in FDG-PET/CT imaging for staging and restaging of malignant disease. PET Clin. 9:117–127. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
3	Feldman F, Vanheertum R and Saxena C: 18Fluoro-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography evaluation of benign versus malignant osteochondromas: Preliminary observations. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 30:858–864. 2006. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
4	Brenner W, Conrad EU and Eary JF: FDG PET imaging for grading and prediction of outcome in chondrosarcoma patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 31:189–195. 2004. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
5	Conti PS, Lilien DL, Hawley K, Keppler J, Grafton ST and Bading JR: PET and [¹⁸F]-FDG in oncology: A clinical update. Nucl Med Biol. 23:717–735. 1996. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
6	Basu S, Hess S, Braad Nielsen PE, Olsen BB, Inglev S and Høilund-Carlsen PF: The basic principles of FDG-PET/CT imaging. PET Clin. 9:355–370. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
7	Dhanoa A, Singh Ajit V and Elbahri H: Deep infections after endoprosthetic replacement operations in orthopedic oncology patients. Surg Infect (Larchmt). 16:323–332. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
8	Hess S, Hansson SH, Pedersen KT, Basu S and Høilund-Carlsen PF: FDG-PET/CT in infectious and inflammatory diseases. PET Clin. 9:497–519. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
9	Vaidyanathan S, Patel CN, Scarsbrook AF and Chowdhury FU: FDG PET/CT in infection and inflammation - current and emerging clinical applications. Clin Radiol. 70:787–800. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
10	Berger P, Vaartjes I, Scholtens A, Moll FL, De Borst GJ, De Keizer B, Bots ML and Blankensteijn JD: Differential FDG-PET uptake patterns in uninfected and infected central prosthetic vascular grafts. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 50:376–383. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
11	Kennedy JA, Israel O, Frenkel A, Bar-Shalom R and Azhari H: The reduction of artifacts due to metal hip implants in CT-attenuation corrected PET images from hybrid PET/CT scanners. Med Biol Eng Comput. 45:553–562. 2007. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
12	Shimamoto H, Kakimoto N, Fujino K, Hamada S, Shimosegawa E, Murakami S, Furukawa S and Hatazawa J: Metallic artifacts caused by dental metal prostheses on PET images: A PET/CT phantom study using different PET/CT scanners. Ann Nucl Med. 23:443–449. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
13	Kamel EM, Burger C, Buck A, von Schulthess GK and Goerres GW: Impact of metallic dental implants on CT-based attenuation correction in a combined PET/CT scanner. Eur Radiol. 13:724–728. 2003. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
14	Buchbender C, Hartung-Knemeyer V, Forsting M, Antoch G and Heusner TA: Positron emission tomography (PET) attenuation correction artefacts in PET/CT and PET/MRI. Br J Radiol. 86:201205702013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI