4.7 Article

Direct relationship between cell density and FDG uptake in asymptomatic aortic aneurysm close to surgical threshold: an in vivo and in vitro study

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00259-011-1955-1

关键词

Abdominal aortic aneurysm; Positron emission tomography/computed tomography; FDG uptake; Atherosclerosis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose Conflicting results have been reported about the clinical value of fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) imaging in predicting the risk of rupture of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). The present study tests the hypothesis that FDG uptake is low in asymptomatic noninflammatory AAA due to the low cell density in aneurysmal walls. Methods Positron emission tomography (PET)/CT imaging was performed in 12 consecutive candidates for AAA surgical repair and in 12 age- and sex-matched controls. At intervention, aneurysmal walls were cut into three sequential blocks. Block A was frozen to cut three 5-mu m slices for incubation with 2-3 MBq of FDG for 5 min. Block C was first incubated with the same tracer solution for the same time and subsequently frozen to cut three 5-mu m slices. Autoradiographic images were coregistered with immunohistochemical pictures of cell density, type and DNA synthesis as assessed on block B. Results No visible uptake in abdominal aorta occurred in any patient or control subject. Immunohistochemistry documented a severe loss of wall structure, with low numbers of cells. Tracer retention directly correlated with overall cell density and with prevalence of cells synthesizing DNA. The metabolic nature of FDG uptake was confirmed by the selective effect of preliminary freezing that decreased tracer content by 90% in regions with high cell density and only by 34% in cold acellular areas. Conclusion The loss of tissue structure and the marked decrease in cell density account for the low prevalence of positive findings at FDG PET imaging, at least in asymptomatic patients bearing AAAs whose diameter is close to surgical indication.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据