In:
PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science (PLoS), Vol. 16, No. 3 ( 2021-3-26), p. e0249304-
Abstract:
To retrospectively assess the repeatability of physiological F-18 labeled fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) uptake in the skin on positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance imaging (PET/MRI) and explore its regional distribution and relationship with sex and age. Methods Out of 562 examinations with normal FDG distribution on whole-body PET/MRI, 74 repeated examinations were evaluated to assess the repeatability and regional distribution of physiological skin uptake. Furthermore, 224 examinations were evaluated to compare differences in the uptake due to sex and age. Skin segmentation on PET was performed as body-surface contouring on an MR-based attenuation correction map using an off-line reconstruction software. Bland–Altman plots were created for the repeatability assessment. Kruskal–Wallis test was performed to compare the maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) with regional distribution, age, and sex. Results The limits of agreement for the difference in SUVmean and SUVmax of the skin were less than 30%. The highest SUVmax was observed in the face (3.09±1.04), followed by the scalp (2.07±0.53). The SUVmax in the face of boys aged 0–9 years and 10–20 years (1.33±0.64 and 2.05±1.00, respectively) and girls aged 0–9 years (0.98±0.38) was significantly lower than that of men aged ≥20 years and girls aged ≥10 years (p 〈 0.001). In women, the SUVmax of the face (2.31±0.71) of ≥70-year-olds was significantly lower than that of 30–39-year-olds (3.83±0.82) (p 〈 0.05). Conclusion PET/MRI enabled the quantitative analysis of skin FDG uptake with repeatability. The degree of physiological FDG uptake in the skin was the highest in the face and varied between sexes. Although attention to differences in body habitus between age groups is needed, skin FDG uptake also depended on age.
Type of Medium:
Online Resource
ISSN:
1932-6203
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0249304
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0249304.g001
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0249304.g002
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0249304.g003
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0249304.g004
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0249304.g005
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0249304.g006
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0249304.g007
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0249304.t001
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0249304.s001
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0249304.s002
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0249304.s003
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0249304.s004
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0249304.s005
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0249304.s006
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0249304.s007
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0249304.s008
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0249304.s009
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0249304.s010
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0249304.s011
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0249304.r001
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0249304.r002
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0249304.r003
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0249304.r004
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0249304.r005
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0249304.r006
Language:
English
Publisher:
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Publication Date:
2021
detail.hit.zdb_id:
2267670-3
Bookmarklink