Evaluation of the PET component of simultaneous [18F]choline PET/MRI in prostate cancer: Comparison with [18F]choline PET/CT

European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging

Volumn 41, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 79-88

  Wetter, Axel ^a   Lipponer, Christine ^a   Nensa, Felix ^a   Heusch, Philipp ^b   Rübben, Herbert ^a   Altenbernd, Jens Christian ^a   Schlosser, Thomas ^a   Bockisch, Andreas ^a   Pöppel, Thorsten ^a   Lauenstein, Thomas ^a   Nagarajah, James ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL ESSEN   (Germany)

^b HEINRICH HEINE UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

Author keywords

Image quality; PET CT; PET MRI; Prostate cancer; Standardized uptake values

Indexed keywords

18F CHOLINE; RADIOISOTOPE; UNCLASSIFIED DRUG;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BONE METASTASIS; CANCER RECURRENCE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CLINICAL EVALUATION; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY SCANNER; COMPUTER ASSISTED EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; CORRELATION COEFFICIENT; HISTOLOGY; HUMAN; IMAGE QUALITY; LYMPH NODE METASTASIS; MALE; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE SCANNER; PET SCANNER; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; PRIMARY TUMOR; PROSTATE BIOPSY; PROSTATE CANCER; SCORING SYSTEM;

AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BONE NEOPLASMS; CHOLINE; HUMANS; LYMPHATIC METASTASIS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MULTIMODAL IMAGING; POSITRON-EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RECURRENCE; TIME FACTORS; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED;

EID: 84890765559     PISSN: 16197070     EISSN: 16197089     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00259-013-2560-2     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Soyka JD, Muster MA, Schmid DT, Seifert B, Schick U, Maralbell R, et al. Clinical impact of 18F-choline PET/CT in patients with recurrent prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2012;39:936-43.
2. Beheshti M, Imamovic L, Broinger G, Vali R, Waldenberger P, Stoiber F, et al. 18F choline PET/CT in the preoperative staging of prostate cancer in patients with intermediate or high risk of extracapsular disease: a prospective study of 130 patients. Radiology 2010;254:925-33.
3. Wehrl F, Judenhofer MS, Wiehr S, Pichler BJ. Pre-clinical PET/MR: technological advances and new perspectives in biomedical research. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2009;36 Suppl 1:S56-68.
4. Hofmann M, Pichler B, Schölkopf B, Beyer T. Towards quantitative PET/MRI: a review of MR-based attenuation correction techniques. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2009;36 Suppl 1:S93-104.
5. Martinez-Möller A, Souvatzoglou M, Delso G, Bundschuh RA, Chefd'hotel C, Ziegler SI, et al. Tissue classification as a potential approach for attenuation correction in whole-body PET/MRI: evaluation with PET/CT data. J Nucl Med 2009;50:520-6.
6. Drzezga A, Souvatzoglou M, Eiber M, Beer AJ, Fürst S, Martinez-Möller A, et al. First clinical experience with integrated whole-body PET/MR: comparison to PET/CT in patients with oncologic diagnoses. J Nucl Med 2012;53:845-55.
7. Heusch P, Buchbender C, Beiderwellen K, Nensa F, Hartung-Knemeyer V, Lauenstein TC, et al. Standardized uptake values for [18F] FDG in normal organ tissues: comparison of whole-body PET/CT and PET/MRI. Eur J Radiol 2013;82:870-6.
8. Bini J, Izquierdo-Garcia D, Mateo J, Machac J, Narula J, Fuster V, et al. Preclinical evaluation of MR attenuation correction versus CT attenuation correction on a sequential whole-body MR/PET scanner. Invest Radiol 2013;48:313-22.
9. Kim JH, Lee JS, Song IC, Lee DS. Comparison of segmentation-based attenuation correction methods for PET/MRI: evaluation of bone and liver standardized uptake value with oncologic PET/CT data. J Nucl Med 2012;53:1878-82.
10. Wiesmüller M, Quick HH, Navalpakkam B, Lell MM, Uder M, Ritt P, et al. Comparison of lesion detection and quantitation of tracer uptake between PET from a simultaneously acquiring whole-body PET/MR hybrid scanner and PET from PET/CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2013;40(1):12-21.
11. Akbarzadeh A, Ay MR, Ahmadian A, Alam NR, Zaidi H. MRI-guided attenuation correction in whole-body PET/MR: assessment of the effect of bone attenuation. Ann Nucl Med 2013;27:152-62.
12. Boellaard R, Krak NC, Hoekstra OS, Lammertsma AA. Effects of noise, image resolution, and ROI definition on the accuracy of standard uptake values: a simulation study. J Nucl Med 2004;45:1519-27.
13. Boellaard R, Oyen WJ, Hoekstra CJ, Hoekstra OS, Visser EP, Willemsen AT, et al. The Netherlands protocol for standardisation and quantification of FDG whole body PET studies in multi-centre trials. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2008;35:2320-33.
14. Antoch G, Freudenberg LS, Stattaus J, Jentzen W, Mueller SP, Debatin JF, et al. Whole-body positron emission tomography-CT: optimized CT using oral and IV contrast materials. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002;179:1555-60.
15. Oprea-Lager DE, Vincent AD, van Mooreslaar RJ, Gerritsen WR, van den Eertwegh AJ, Eriksson J, et al. Dual-phase PET-CT to differentiate [18F]fluoromethylcholine uptake in reactive and malignant lymph nodes in patients with prostate cancer. PLoS One 2012;7:e48430.
16. Cimitan M, Bortolus R, Morassut S, Canzonieri V, Garbeglio A, Baresic T, et al. [18F]fluorocholine PET/CT imaging for the detection of recurrent prostate cancer at PSA relapse: experience in 100 consecutive patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2006;33:1387-98.
17. Souvatzoglou M, Eiber M, Takei T, Fürst S, Maurer T, Gaertner F, et al. Comparison of integrated whole-body [11C]choline PET/MR with PET/CT in patients with prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2013 [Epub ahead of print].
18. Giussani A, Janzen T, Uusijärvi-Lizana H, Tavola F, Zankl M, Sydoff M, et al. A compartmental model for biokinetics and dosimetry of 18F-choline in prostate cancer patients. J Nucl Med 2012;53:985-93.
19. Kershah S, Partovi S, Traughber BJ, Muzic RF Jr, Schluchter MD, O'Donnell JK, et al. Comparison of standardized uptake values in normal structures between PET/CT and PET/MRI in an oncology patient population. Mol Imaging Biol 2013 [Epub ahead of print].
20. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986;1(8476):307-10.