PET/MR imaging: A critical appraisal

Journal of Nuclear Medicine

Volumn 55, Issue 6 SUPPL. 2, 2014, Pages

  Weber, Wolfgang A ^a  

^a MEMORIAL SLOAN KETTERING CANCER CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

CT; MRI; PET; PET CT; PET MRI; Physics and instrumentation

Indexed keywords

FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F 18;

CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER RECURRENCE; CANCER STAGING; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; HEALTH CARE COST; HUMAN; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE CANCER; RADIATION EXPOSURE; REIMBURSEMENT; REVIEW; TREATMENT RESPONSE; WHOLE BODY PET;

EID: 84903182353     PISSN: 01615505     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.113.129270     Document Type: Review

References (35)

1. Beyer T, Townsend DW, Brun T, et al. A combined PET/CT scanner for clinical oncology. J Nucl Med. 2000;41:1369-1379. (Pubitemid 30643379)
2. Goerres GW, von Schulthess GK, Steinert HC. Why most PET of lung and head-and-neck cancer will be PET/CT. J Nucl Med. 2004;45(suppl 1):66S-71S.
3. Wahl RL. Why nearly all PET of abdominal and pelvic cancers will be performed as PET/CT. J Nucl Med. 2004;45(suppl 1):82S-95S.
4. Czernin J, Schelbert HR. PET/CT in cancer patient management: introduction. J Nucl Med. 2007;48(suppl 1):2S-3S.
5. Czernin J, Allen-Auerbach M, Schelbert HR. Improvements in cancer staging with PET/CT: literature-based evidence as of September 2006. J Nucl Med. 2007;48(suppl 1):78S-88S. (Pubitemid 47604945)
6. Schlemmer HP, Pichler BJ, Schmand M, et al. Simultaneous MR/PET imaging of the human brain: feasibility study. Radiology. 2008;248:1028-1035.
7. Ratib O, Beyer T. Whole-body hybrid PET/MRI: ready for clinical use? Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;38:992-995.
8. Bailey DL, Barthel H, Beuthin-Baumann B, et al. Combined PET/MR: where are we now? Summary Report of the Second International Workshop on PET/MR Imaging April 8-12, 2013, Tubingen, Germany. Mol Imaging Biol. March 26, 2014 [Epub ahead of print].
9. Czernin J, Ta L, Herrmann K. Does PET/MR imaging improve cancer assessments? Literature evidence from more than 900 patients. J Nucl Med. 2014;55(suppl 2):59S-62S.
10. Huang BY, Solle M, Weissler MC. Larynx: anatomic imaging for diagnosis and management. Otolaryngol Clin North Am. 2012;45:1325-1361.
11. Kuno H, Onaya H, Fujii S, Ojiri H, Otani K, Satake M. Primary staging of laryngeal and hypopharyngeal cancer: CT, MR imaging and dual-energy CT. Eur J Radiol. 2014;83:e23-e35.
12. Gross MW, Weber WA, Feldmann HJ, Bartenstein P, Schwaiger M, Molls M. The value of F-18-fluorodeoxyglucose PET for the 3-D radiation treatment planning of malignant gliomas. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1998;41:989-995. (Pubitemid 28377478)
13. 18F-FDG PET/CT parameters as imaging biomarkers of overall survival in castrate-resistant metastatic prostate cancer. J Nucl Med. 2013;54:1195-1201.
14. 99mTc-MDP bone scan in progressing metastatic prostate cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2010;16:6093-6099.
15. 18F-FDG in patients with cirrhosis or chronic liver disease. J Nucl Med. 2010;51:1699-1706.
16. 18F- fluorodeoxyglucose: diagnostic limitations. World J Surg. 2000;24:1121-1129.
17. 68Ga]gallium-labelled PSMA ligand for the diagnosis of prostate cancer: biodistribution in humans and first evaluation of tumour lesions. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;40:486-495.
18. 18F-DCFBC, a low-molecular-weight inhibitor of prostate-specific membrane antigen, in patients with metastatic prostate cancer. J Nucl Med. 2012;53:1883-1891.
19. 68Ga]-labeled bombesin analog BAY86-7548. Clin Cancer Res. 2013;19:5434-5443.
20. Wieser G, Mansi R, Grosu AL, et al. Positron emission tomography (PET) imaging of prostate cancer with a gastrin releasing peptide receptor antagonist: from mice to men. Theranostics. 2014;4:412-419.
21. 68Ga-labelled PSMA ligand for the diagnosis of recurrent prostate cancer: initial experience. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;41:887-897.
22. 131I-labeled small molecule (MIP-1095) targeting PSMA for prostate cancer therapy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. February 28, 2014 [Epub ahead of print].
23. 18F-FET PET and perfusion-weighted MR imaging: a PET/MR imaging hybrid study in patients with brain tumors. J Nucl Med. 2014;55:540-545.
24. Rahm V, Boxheimer L, Bruehlmeier M, et al. Focal changes in diffusivity on apparent diffusion coefficient MR imaging and amino acid uptake on PET do not colocalize in nonenhancing low-grade gliomas. J Nucl Med. 2014;55:546-550.
25. 11C) methionine positron emission tomography for target delineation in resected high-grade gliomas before radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005;63:64-74.
26. 11C]methionine (MET)-PET in patients with brain gliomas and metastases. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011;81:1049-1058.
27. 18F-FDOPA PET in patients with recurrent malignant glioma on bevacizumab therapy. Clin Cancer Res. March 31, 2014 [Epub ahead of print].
28. Pöpperl G, Kreth FW, Mehrkens JH, et al. FET PET for the evaluation of untreated gliomas: correlation of FET uptake and uptake kinetics with tumour grading. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2007;34:1933-1942. (Pubitemid 350212135)
29. 18F- fluoroethyl)-L-tyrosine PET as a diagnostic tool for detection of malignant progression in patients with low-grade glioma. J Nucl Med. 2013;54:2046-2054.
30. Sullivan R, Peppercorn J, Sikora K, et al. Delivering affordable cancer care in high-income countries. Lancet Oncol. 2011;12:933-980.
31. Yang Y, Czernin J. Contribution of imaging to cancer care costs. J Nucl Med. 2011;52(suppl 2):86S-92S.
32. Iglehart JK. Health insurers and medical-imaging policy: a work in progress. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:1030-1037.
33. Ware RE, Hicks RJ. Doing more harm than good? Do systematic reviews of PET by health technology assessment agencies provide an appraisal of the evidence that is closer to the truth than the primary data supporting its use? J Nucl Med. 2011;52(suppl 2):64S-73S.
34. Vach W, Hoilund-Carlsen PF, Gerke O, Weber WA. Generating evidence for clinical benefit of PET/CT in diagnosing cancer patients. J Nucl Med. 2011;52(suppl 2):77S-85S.
35. Weber WA. Is there evidence for evidence-based medical imaging? J Nucl Med. 2011;52(suppl 2):74S-76S.