PMC8273265_01
Patient A maximum intensity projection (MIP) images. (A) Extravasated injection. (B) Repeated imaging. Arrows indicate the clinically relevant area of uptake.
fmed-08-684157-g0001.jpg
PMC8273265_01_fmed-08-684157-g0001.jpg
F1
Procedure parameters and images are compared in Table 3 and Figure 1.
PMC8273265_02
Patient B MIP images. (A) Initial re-staging imaging. (B) Second re-staging extravasated injection. (C) Repeated imaging. Arrows indicate the areas of relevant uptake which were not visible after extravasation.
fmed-08-684157-g0002.jpg
PMC8273265_02_fmed-08-684157-g0002.jpg
F2
This second re-staging study was compromised by a significant radiopharmaceutical extravasation and was repeated 3 days later. Procedure parameters and images are compared in Table 4 and Figure 2. The extravasated image SUVmax values were understated by 53-73%.
PMC8273265_03
Patient C MIP images. (A) Extravasated injection. (B) Repeated imaging.
fmed-08-684157-g0003.jpg
PMC8273265_03_fmed-08-684157-g0003.jpg
F3
Procedure parameters and images are compared in Table 5 and Figure 3.
PMC8273265_04
Patient D MIP images. (A) Extravasated injection. (B) Repeated imaging. Arrows indicate the areas of clinically relevant increased uptake.
fmed-08-684157-g0004.jpg
PMC8273265_04_fmed-08-684157-g0004.jpg
F4
Procedure parameters and images are compared in Table 6 and Figure 4.
PMC8273265_05
Patient E MIP images. (A) Extravasated injection. (B) Repeated imaging. Arrows indicate areas of relevant uptake between the two scans.
fmed-08-684157-g0005.jpg
PMC8273265_05_fmed-08-684157-g0005.jpg
F5
Procedure parameters and images are compared in Table 7 and Figure 5.