Whole-body nonenhanced PET/MR versus PET/CT in the staging and restaging of cancers: Preliminary observations

Radiology

Volumn 273, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 859-869

  Huellner, Martin W ^a   Appenzeller, Philippe ^a,b   Kuhn, Félix P ^a,b   Husmann, Lars ^a   Pietsch, Carsten M ^a   Burger, Irene A ^a   Porto, Miguel ^a   Delso, Gaspar ^a,c   Von Schulthess, Gustav K ^a   Veit Haibach, Patrick ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL ZURICH   (Switzerland)

^b University Hospital Zurich Institut fur Diagnostische Radiologie   (Switzerland)

^c GE HEALTHCARE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AGED; ARTICLE; ARTIFACT; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER STAGING; COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY SCANNER; COMPUTER ASSISTED EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; DISTANT METASTASIS; FEMALE; HUMAN; IMAGE RECONSTRUCTION; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LYMPH NODE METASTASIS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE SCANNER; PET SCANNER; PRIMARY TUMOR; WHOLE BODY PET; ADOLESCENT; ADULT; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; DIAGNOSTIC USE; MIDDLE AGED; MULTIMODAL IMAGING; NEOPLASM; PATHOLOGY; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; VERY ELDERLY; WHOLE BODY IMAGING;

CONTRAST MEDIUM;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; ARTIFACTS; CONTRAST MEDIA; FEMALE; HUMANS; LYMPHATIC METASTASIS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MULTIMODAL IMAGING; NEOPLASM STAGING; NEOPLASMS; POSITRON-EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED; WHOLE BODY IMAGING;

EID: 84916611893     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: 15271315     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.14140090     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Appenzeller P, Mader C, Huellner MW, et al. PET/CT versus body coil PET/MRI: how low can you go? Insights Imaging 2013;4(4): 481-490
2. Drzezga A, Souvatzoglou M, Eiber M, 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(6):845-855
3. Yi CA, Shin KM, Lee KS, et al. Non-small cell lung cancer staging: efficacy comparison of integrated PET/CT versus 3.0-T wholebody MR imaging. Radiology 2008;248(2): 632-642
4. Stolzmann P, Veit-Haibach P, Chuck N, et al. Detection rate, location, and size of pulmonary nodules in trimodality PET/CT-MR: comparison of low-dose CT and Dixon-based MR imaging. Invest Radiol 2013;48(5): 241-246
5. Eiber M, Martinez-Möller A, Souvatzoglou M, et al. Value of a Dixon-based MR/PET attenuation correction sequence for the localization and evaluation of PET-positive lesions. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2011;38(9): 1691-1701
6. Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer 2009;45(2):228-247
7. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977;33(1):159-174
8. Wiesmüller M, Quick HH, Navalpakkam B, et al. Comparison of lesion detection and quantitation of tracer uptake between PET from a simultaneously acquiring wholebody PET/MR hybrid scanner and PET from PET/CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2013;40(1):12-21
9. Ohno Y, Koyama H, Nogami M, et al. STIR turbo SE MR imaging vs. coregistered FDGPET/ CT: quantitative and qualitative assessment of N-stage in non-small-cell lung cancer patients. J Magn Reson Imaging 2007; 26(4):1071-1080
10. Chandarana H, Heacock L, Rakheja R, et al. Pulmonary nodules in patients with primary malignancy: comparison of hybrid PET/MR and PET/CT imaging. Radiology 2013;268(3):874-881
11. Both M, Schultze J, Reuter M, et al. Fast T1- and T2-weighted pulmonary MR-imaging in patients with bronchial carcinoma. Eur J Radiol 2005;53(3):478-488
12. Kuhn FP, Hüllner M, Mader CE, et al. Contrast-enhanced PET/MR imaging versus contrast-enhanced PET/CT in head and neck cancer: how much MR information is needed? J Nucl Med 2014;55(4):551-558
13. Kuhn FP, Crook DW, Mader CE, Appenzeller P, von Schulthess GK, Schmid DT. Discrimination and anatomical mapping of PET-positive lesions: comparison of CT attenuation- corrected PET images with coregistered MR and CT images in the abdomen. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2013;40(1): 44-51
14. Catalano OA, Rosen BR, Sahani DV, et al. Clinical impact of PET/MR imaging in patients with cancer undergoing same-day PET/CT: initial experience in 134 patients- a hypothesis-generating exploratory study. Radiology 2013;269(3):857-869
15. Ohno Y, Koyama H, Onishi Y, et al. Nonsmall cell lung cancer: whole-body MR examination for M-stage assessment-utility for whole-body diffusion-weighted imaging compared with integrated FDG PET/CT. Radiology 2008;248(2):643-654
16. Morikawa M, Demura Y, Ishizaki T, et al. The effectiveness of 18F-FDG PET/CT combined with STIR MRI for diagnosing nodal involvement in the thorax. J Nucl Med 2009; 50(1):81-87
17. Ma J. Breath-hold water and fat imaging using a dual-echo two-point Dixon technique with an efficient and robust phase-correction algorithm. Magn Reson Med 2004; 52(2):415-419
18. Pipe JG. Motion correction with PROPELLER MRI: Application to head motion and free-breathing cardiac imaging. Magn Reson Med 1999;42(5):963-969