引用本文: | 周 硕,朱庆国,叶烈夫,林美福,陈文新,陈国宝,李君霞,陈彩龙.18F-氟乙酸联合18F-FDG PET/CT显像在肾肿瘤鉴别诊断中的价值[J].大连医科大学学报,2016,38(4):340-343. |
| |
|
本文已被:浏览 次 下载 次 |
 码上扫一扫! |
|
18F-氟乙酸联合18F-FDG PET/CT显像在肾肿瘤鉴别诊断中的价值 |
周 硕,朱庆国,叶烈夫,林美福,陈文新,陈国宝,李君霞,陈彩龙
|
1.福建医科大学省立临床医学院 福建省立医院 核医学科 PET-CT中心;2.福建医科大学省立临床医学院 福建省立医院 泌尿外科,福建 福州 350001
|
|
摘要: |
目的 探讨18F-FDG联合18F-FAC PET/CT显像对肾血管平滑肌脂肪瘤(angiomyolipoma, AML)与肾细胞癌(renal cell carcinoma, RCC)鉴别诊断及RCC分级的价值。 方法 回顾性分析福建省立医院46例可疑肾肿瘤而行18F-FDG、18F-FAC双核素PET/CT显像患者资料。所有病例均经手术或穿刺活检证实。测量所有病灶的18F-FDG、18F-FAC PET/CT显像SUVmax值及CT平扫图像CT值。分析RCC和AML CT值、SUVmax值差异及不同级别RCC SUVmax值差异是否有统计学意义。 结果 所有AML病灶表现为18F-FAC高摄取,18F-FDG低摄取或无摄取。RCC病灶的SUVmax值为2.07±0.51,显著低于乏脂肪AML(4.25±0.60),P<0.05。低级别RCC检出率18F-FAC显像为82.6%(19/23),显著高于18F-FDG显像的8.7%(2/23),P<0.05。18F-FDG PET/CT显像高级别RCC SUVmax值(3.21±0.79)明显高于低级别RCC(1.21±0.13),P<0.05。 结论 18F-FAC可应用于AML与RCC的鉴别诊断。双核素PET/CT显像不仅可应用于肾肿瘤的鉴别诊断,还可用于肿瘤分级及预后判断。 |
关键词: 18F-FAC 18F-FDG 肾占位 体层摄影术 X线计算机 |
DOI:10.11724/jdmu.2016.04.06 |
分类号:R445.51 |
基金项目:基金项目:福建省自然科学基金项目(2016J01502);福建省卫生系统中青年骨干人才培养项目(2013-ZQN-JC-4) |
|
Value of 18F-flunoroacetate combined with 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose in differential diagnosis of renal masses |
ZHOU Shuo1, ZHU Qing-guo2, YE Lie-fu2, LIN Mei-fu3, CHEN Wen-xin3, CHEN Guo-bao3, LI Jun-xia3, CHEN Cai-long3
|
1.Department of Nuclear Medicine,;2.Department of Urology, Provincial Clinical Hospital of Fujian Medical Univercity, Fuzhou 350001, China;3.Department of Nuclear Medicine
|
Abstract: |
Objective To investigate the metabolic characteristics of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and angiomyolipoma (AML) with 18F-flunoroacetate(18F-FAC) and 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG). Methods A total of 46 patients with a renal mass underwent both whole body 18F-FDG and 18F-FAC PET/CT imaging. The PET results were correlated with the histological diagnosis. The differences in CT number and SUVmax between RCC and AML, as well as in SUVmax between low-grade RCC and high-grade RCC were compared. (2 test and t-test were used for statistical analysis. Results All AMLs showed negative 18F-FDG but increased 18F-FAC metabolism. The mean 18F-FAC SUVmax of RCC was significantly lower than lipid-poor AML (2.07±0.51 vs. 4.25±0.60, P<0.05). Low-grade RCC were more likely to be detected by 18F-FAC(19/23, 82.6%) than 18F-FDG(2/23,8.7%) (χ2=13.4 , P<0.05). 18F-FDG SUVmax was significantly greater in high-grade than low-grade clear cell RCC (3.21±0.79 vs. 1.21±0.13, t=2.6, P<0.05). High-grade RCC were more avid for 18F-FDG, whereas low-grade more for 18F-FAC. Conclusion 18F-FAC PET/CT helps in differentiating lipid-poor renal AML from RCC. A combination examination with 18F-FAC and 18F-FDG shows excellent sensitivity in the detection of RCC and can additionally provide a hint toward the differentiation grade of RCC. |
Key words: 18F-FAC 18F-FDG renal mass tomography X-ray computed |