A review of methods for assessment of the rate of gastric emptying in the dog and cat: 1898-2002

Gastric emptying is the process by which food is delivered to the small intestine at a rate and in a form that optimizes intestinal absorption of nutrients. The rate of gastric emptying is subject to alteration by physiological, pharmacological, and pathological conditions. Gastric emptying of solids is of greater clinical significance because disordered gastric emptying rarely is detectable in the liquid phase. Imaging techniques have the disadvantage of requiring restraint of the animal and access to expensive equipment. Radiographic methods require administration of test meals that are not similar to food. Scintigraphy is the gold standard method for assessment of gastric emptying but requires administration of a radioisotope. Magnetic resonance imaging has not yet been applied for assessment of gastric emptying in small animals. Ultrasonography is a potentially useful, but subjective, method for assessment of gastric emptying in dogs. Gastric tracer methods require insertion of gastric or intestinal cannulae and are rarely applied outside of the research laboratory. The paracetamol absorption test has been applied for assessment of liquid phase gastric emptying in the dog, but requires IV cannulation. The gastric emptying breath test is a noninvasive method for assessment of gastric emptying that has been applied in dogs and cats. This method can be carried out away from the veterinary hospital, but the effects of physiological and pathological abnormalities on the test are not known. Advances in technology will facilitate the development of reliable methods for assessment of gastric emptying in small animals

Volumetric FDG-PET predicts overall and progression- free survival after 14 days of targeted therapy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma

Background: To determine whether changes in the metabolism of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) assessed by F18-FDG-PET after 14 and 28 days of treatment with tyrosine kinase inhibitors can predict overall and progression-free patient survival. Methods: Thirty-nine consecutive patients with mRCC were included prospectively and underwent PET examinations prior to and after 14 and 28 days of standard treatment with sunitinib (n = 18), sorafenib (n = 19) or pazopanib (n = 2). The PET response was analyzed in terms of SUVmax, SULpeak, and total lesion glycolysis and a positive response (defined as a 30% reduction) compared to overall and progression-free survival. Results: Thirty-five patients with at least one metabolically active metastatic lesion prior to treatment underwent additional FDG-PET examinations after 14 (n = 32) and/or 28 days (n = 30) of treatment. Changes in either SULpeak or total lesion glycolysis were correlated to both progression-free and overall survival (for TLG2.5 responders, HR = 0.38 (95% CI: 0.18-0.83) and 0.22 (95% CI: 0.09-0.53), and for TLG50 responders, HR = 0.25 (0.10-0.62) and 0.25 (95% CI: 0.11-0.57) and for SULpeak responders, HR = 0.39 (95% CI: 0.17-0.91) and 0.38 (95% CI: 0.15-0.93), respectively). In contrast SUVmax response did not predict progression-free or overall survival (HR = 0.43 (95% CI: 0.18-1.01) and 0.50 (95% CI: 0.21-1.19), respectively). Conclusions: Assessment of early changes in SULpeak and total lesion glycolysis undergoing treatment with tyrosine kinase inhibitors by FDG-PET can possibly predict progression-free and overall survival in patients with mRCC