The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Pitfalls in Oncologic Diagnosis with FDG PET Imaging: Physiologic and Benign Variants
Abstract
A rapidly emerging clinical application of positron emission tomography (PET) is the detection and staging of cancer with the glucose analogue tracer 2-[fluorine-18]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose (FDG). Proper interpretation of FDG PET images requires knowledge of the normal physiologic distribution of the tracer, frequently encountered physiologic variants, and benign pathologic causes of FDG uptake that can be confused with a malignant neoplasm. One hour after intravenous administration, high FDG activity is present in the brain, the myocardium, and--due to the excretory route--the urinary tract. Elsewhere, tracer activity is typically low, a fact that allows sensitive demonstration of tracer accumulation in many malignant neoplasms. Interpretive pitfalls commonly encountered on FDG PET images of the body obtained 1 hour after tracer administration can be mistaken for cancer. Such pitfalls include variable physiologic FDG uptake in the digestive tract, thyroid gland, skeletal muscle, myocardium, bone marrow, and genitourinary tract and benign pathologic FDG uptake in healing bone, lymph nodes, joints, sites of infection, and cases of regional response to infection and aseptic inflammatory response. In many instances, these physiologic variants and benign pathologic causes of FDG uptake can be specifically recognized and properly categorized; in other instances, such as the lymph node response to inflammation or infection, focal FDG uptake is nonspecific.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
A Systematic Review of the Factors Affecting Accuracy of SUV Measurements
Adams, M. C., Turkington, T. G., Wilson, J. M., & Wong, T. Z. (2010) · American Journal of Roentgenology · doi:10.2214/ajr.10.4923 · Cited by 662
Bar-Shalom, R., Valdivia, A. Y., & Blaufox, M. D. (2000) · Seminars in Nuclear Medicine · doi:10.1053/snuc.2000.7439 · Cited by 340
PET Diagnostic Accuracy: Improvement with In-Line PET-CT System: Initial Results
Hany, T. F., Steinert, H. C., Goerres, G. W., Buck, A., & von Schulthess, G. K. (2002) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.2252011568 · Cited by 323
Koglin, N., Mueller, A., Berndt, M., Schmitt-Willich, H., Toschi, L., Stephens, A. W., Gekeler, V., Friebe, M., & Dinkelborg, L. M. (2011) · Clinical Cancer Research · doi:10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-11-0687 · Cited by 120
Serganova, I., Humm, J., Ling, C., & Blasberg, R. (2006) · Clinical Cancer Research · doi:10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-06-0517 · Cited by 50
Metadata
- Authors
- Shreve, P. D., Anzai, Y., & Wahl, R. L.
- Venue
- RadioGraphics
- Published
- 1999-01
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 61-77
- ISSN
- 0271-5333 (ISSN-L)
- 1527-1323
- OpenAlex
- W2151523321
- Cited by
- 827
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 15.80
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Pitfalls in Oncologic Diagnosis with FDG PET Imaging: Physiologic and Benign Variants. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1148/radiographics.19.1.g99ja0761
- The paper
- Shreve, P. D., Anzai, Y., & Wahl, R. L. (1999). Pitfalls in Oncologic Diagnosis with FDG PET Imaging: Physiologic and Benign Variants. RadioGraphics. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiographics.19.1.g99ja0761
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.