18F-FDG PET/CT and PET/MRI perform equally well in cancer: Evidence from studies on more than 2,300 patients

Journal of Nuclear Medicine

Volumn 57, Issue 3, 2016, Pages 420-430

  Spick, Claudio ^a   Herrmann, Ken ^a,b   Czernin, Johannes ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL WÜRZBURG   (Germany)

Author keywords

Cancer diagnosis; Oncology; PET CT; PET MRI; Staging; Therapy monitoring

Indexed keywords

FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F 18;

ARTICLE; BONE CANCER; BONE METASTASIS; BREAST CANCER; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER STAGING; CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM TUMOR; CHILDHOOD CANCER; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIGESTIVE SYSTEM CANCER; FEMALE GENITAL TRACT CANCER; HEAD AND NECK CANCER; HUMAN; LUNG CANCER; LUNG NODULE; LYMPHOMA; MENINGIOMA; MULTIMODAL IMAGING; NEUROENDOCRINE TUMOR; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PET-CT SCANNER; PET-MRI SCANNER; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE CANCER; NEOPLASMS; PATHOLOGY; SCINTISCANNING;

HUMANS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MULTIMODAL IMAGING; NEOPLASM STAGING; NEOPLASMS; POSITRON-EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY;

EID: 84960099735     PISSN: 01615505     EISSN: 2159662X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.115.158808     Document Type: Article

References (96)

1. Phelps ME, Hoffman EJ, Mullani NA, Ter-Pogossian MM. Application of annihilation coincidence detection to transaxial reconstruction tomography. J Nucl Med. 1975;16: 210-224.
2. Ter-Pogossian MM, Phelps ME, Hoffman EJ, Mullani NA. A positron-emission transaxial tomograph for nuclear imaging (PETT). Radiology. 1975;114: 89-98.
3. Beyer T, Townsend DW, Brun T, et al. A combined PET/CT scanner for clinical oncology. J Nucl Med. 2000;41: 1369-1379.
4. 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.
5. Hillner BE, Siegel BA, Liu D, et al. Impact of positron emission tomography/computed tomography and positron emission tomography (PET) alone on expected management of patients with cancer: Initial results from the National Oncologic PET Registry. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26: 2155-2161.
6. Halpern BS, Dahlbom M, Quon A, et al. Impact of patient weight and emission scan duration on PET/CT image quality and lesion detectability. J Nucl Med. 2004;45: 797-801.
7. Halpern BS, Dahlbom M, Auerbach MA, et al. Optimizing imaging protocols for overweight and obese patients: A lutetium orthosilicate PET/CT study. J Nucl Med. 2005;46: 603-607.
8. Yang Y, Czernin J. Contribution of imaging to cancer care costs. J Nucl Med. 2011;52(suppl 2): 86S-92S.
9. Delso G, Furst S, Jakoby B, et al. Performance measurements of the Siemens mMR integrated whole-body PET/MR scanner. J Nucl Med. 2011;52: 1914-1922.
10. Iagaru A, Mittra E, Minamimoto R, et al. Simultaneous whole-body time-offlight 18F-FDG PET/MRI: A pilot study comparing SUVmax with PET/CT and assessment of MR image quality. Clin Nucl Med. 2015;40: 1-8.
11. Boellaard R, Quick HH. Current image acquisition options in PET/MR. Semin Nucl Med. 2015;45: 192-200.
12. Wehrl HF, Sauter AW, Divine MR, Pichler BJ. Combined PET/MR: A technology becomes mature. J Nucl Med. 2015;56: 165-168.
13. Eiber M, Martinez-Moller 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: 1691-1701.
14. Buchbender C, Hartung-Knemeyer V, Beiderwellen K, et al. Diffusion-weighted imaging as part of hybrid PET/MRI protocols for whole-body cancer staging: Does it benefit lesion detection? Eur J Radiol. 2013;82: 877-882.
15. Punwani S, Taylor SA, Saad ZZ, et al. Diffusion-weighted MRI of lymphoma: Prognostic utility and implications for PET/MRI? Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;40: 373-385.
16. Queiroz MA, Hullner M, Kuhn F, et al. Use of diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) in PET/MRI for head and neck cancer evaluation. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;41: 2212-2221.
17. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: Head and neck cancers V.1.2015. National Comprehensive Cancer Network website. http://www. nccn.org/professionals/physician-gls/pdf/head-and-neck.pdf. Accessed September 22, 2015.
18. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: Central nervous system cancers V.1.2015. National Comprehensive Cancer Network website. http://www.nccn. org/professionals/physician-gls/pdf/cns.pdf. Accessed September 22, 2015.
19. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: Prostate cancer V.2.2015. National Comprehensive Cancer Network website. http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician-gls/pdf/prostate-detection.pdf. Accessed September 22, 2015.
20. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: Hepatobiliary cancers V.2.2015. National Comprehensive Cancer Network website. http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician-gls/pdf/hepatobiliary.pdf. Accessed September 22, 2015.
21. Eiber M, Maurer T, Souvatzoglou M, et al. Evaluation of hybrid 68Ga-PSMA ligand PET/CT in 248 patients with biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. J Nucl Med. 2015;56: 668-674.
22. Werner RA, Bluemel C, Allen-Auerbach MS, Higuchi T, Herrmann K. 68Galliumand 90yttrium-/177lutetium: "theranostic twins" for diagnosis and treatment of NETs. Ann Nucl Med. 2015;29: 1-7.
23. Rauscher I, Eiber M, Souvatzoglou M, Schwaiger M, Beer AJ. PET/MR in oncology: Non-18F-FDG tracers for routine applications. J Nucl Med. 2014;55(suppl): 25S-31S.
24. Queiroz MA, Huellner MW. PET/MR in cancers of the head and neck. Semin Nucl Med. 2015;45: 248-265.
25. Kubiessa K, Purz S, Gawlitza M, et al. Initial clinical results of simultaneous 18FFDG PET/MRI in comparison to 18F-FDG PET/CT in patients with head and neck cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;41: 639-648.
26. Partovi S, Kohan A, Vercher-Conejero JL, et al. Qualitative and quantitative performance of 18F-FDG-PET/MRI versus 18F-FDG-PET/CT in patients with head and neck cancer. AJNR. 2014;35: 1970-1975.
27. Varoquaux A, Rager O, Poncet A, et al. Detection and quantification of focal uptake in head and neck tumours: 18F-FDG PET/MR versus PET/CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;41: 462-475.
28. Kuhn FP, Hullner 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: 551-558.
29. Queiroz MA, Hullner M, Kuhn F, et al. PET/MRI and PET/CT in follow-up of head and neck cancer patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;41: 1066-1075.
30. Covello M, Cavaliere C, Aiello M, et al. Simultaneous PET/MR head-neck cancer imaging: Preliminary clinical experience and multiparametric evaluation. Eur J Radiol. 2015;84: 1269-1276.
31. Schaarschmidt BM, Heusch P, Buchbender C, et al. Locoregional tumour evaluation of squamous cell carcinoma in the head and neck area: A comparison between MRI, PET/CT and integrated PET/MRI. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016;43: 92-102.
32. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: Non-small cell lung cancer V.7.2015. National Comprehensive Cancer Network website. http://www.nccn. org/professionals/physician-gls/PDF/nscl.pdf. Accessed September 22, 2015.
33. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: Small cell lung cancer V.1.2016. National Comprehensive Cancer Network website. http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician-gls/pdf/sclc.pdf. Accessed September 22, 2015.
34. Sieren JC, Ohno Y, Koyama H, Sugimura K, McLennan G. Recent technological and application developments in computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging for improved pulmonary nodule detection and lung cancer staging. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2010;32: 1353-1369.
35. Biederer J, Schoene A, Freitag S, Reuter M, Heller M. Simulated pulmonary nodules implanted in a dedicated porcine chest phantom: Sensitivity of MR imaging for detection. Radiology. 2003;227: 475-483.
36. Schwenzer NF, Schraml C, Muller M, et al. Pulmonary lesion assessment: Comparison of whole-body hybrid MR/PET and PET/CT imaging-pilot study. Radiology. 2012;264: 551-558.
37. Fraioli F, Screaton NJ, Janes SM, et al. Non-small-cell lung cancer resectability: Diagnostic value of PET/MR. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015;42: 49-55.
38. Heusch P, Buchbender C, Kohler J, et al. Thoracic staging in lung cancer: Prospective comparison of 18F-FDG PET/MR imaging and 18F-FDG PET/CT. J Nucl Med. 2014;55: 373-378.
39. 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: 241-246.
40. Rauscher I, Eiber M, Furst S, et al. PET/MR imaging in the detection and characterization of pulmonary lesions: Technical and diagnostic evaluation in comparison to PET/CT. J Nucl Med. 2014;55: 724-729.
41. 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: 874-881.
42. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: Esophageal and esophagogastric junction cancers V.3.2015. National Comprehensive Cancer Network website. http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician-gls/pdf/esophageal.pdf. Accessed June 2, 2015.
43. Varghese TK Jr, Hofstetter WL, Rizk NP, et al. The Society of Thoracic Surgeons guidelines on the diagnosis and staging of patients with esophageal cancer. Ann Thorac Surg. 2013;96: 346-356.
44. Lee G, I H, Kim SJ, et al. Clinical implication of PET/MR imaging in preoperative esophageal cancer staging: Comparison with PET/CT, endoscopic ultrasonography, and CT. J Nucl Med. 2014;55: 1242-1247.
45. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: Colon cancer V.3.2015. National Comprehensive Cancer Network website. http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician-gls/pdf/colon.pdf. Accessed September 22, 2015.
46. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: Rectal cancer V.3.2015. National Comprehensive Cancer Network website. http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician-gls/pdf/rectal.pdf. Accessed September 22, 2015.
47. Paspulati RM, Partovi S, Herrmann KA, Krishnamurthi S, Delaney CP, Nguyen NC. Comparison of hybrid FDG PET/MRI compared with PET/CT in colorectal cancer staging and restaging: A pilot study. Abdom Imaging. 2015;40: 1415-1425.
48. Brendle C, Schwenzer NF, Rempp H, et al. Assessment of metastatic colorectal cancer with hybrid imaging: Comparison of reading performance using different combinations of anatomical and functional imaging techniques in PET/MRI and PET/CT in a short case series. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016;43: 123-132.
49. Reiner CS, Stolzmann P, Husmann L, et al. Protocol requirements and diagnostic value of PET/MR imaging for liver metastasis detection. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;41: 649-658.
50. Beiderwellen K, Gomez B, Buchbender C, et al. Depiction and characterization of liver lesions in whole body [18F]-FDG PET/MRI. Eur J Radiol. 2013;82: E669-e675.
51. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: Uterine neoplasms V.2.2015. National Comprehensive Cancer Network website. http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician-gls/pdf/uterine.pdf. Accessed May 19, 2015.
52. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: Cervical cancer V.2.2015. National Comprehensive Cancer Network website. http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician-gls/pdf/cervical.pdf. Accessed May 19, 2015.
53. Beiderwellen K, Grueneisen J, Ruhlmann V, et al. [18F]FDG PET/MRI vs. PET/CT for whole-body staging in patients with recurrent malignancies of the female pelvis: Initial results. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015;42: 56-65.
54. Queiroz MA, Kubik-Huch RA, Hauser N, et al. PET/MRI and PET/CT in advanced gynaecological tumours: Initial experience and comparison. Eur Radiol. 2015;25: 2222-2230.
55. Grueneisen J, Schaarschmidt BM, Heubner M, et al. Implementation of FASTPET/MRI for whole-body staging of female patients with recurrent pelvic malignancies: A comparison to PET/CT. Eur J Radiol. 2015;84: 2097-2102.
56. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: Breast cancer V.3.2015. National Comprehensive Cancer Network website. http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician-gls/pdf/breast.pdf. Accessed September 22, 2015.
57. Pace L, Nicolai E, Luongo A, et al. Comparison of whole-body PET/CT and PET/MRI in breast cancer patients: Lesion detection and quantitation of 18Fdeoxyglucose uptake in lesions and in normal organ tissues. Eur J Radiol. 2014;83: 289-296.
58. Grueneisen J, Nagarajah J, Buchbender C, et al. Positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance imaging for local tumor staging in patients with primary breast cancer: A comparison with positron emission tomography/computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging. Invest Radiol. 2015;50: 505-513.
59. Umbehr MH, Muntener M, Hany T, Sulser T, Bachmann LM. The role of 11Ccholine and 18F-fluorocholine positron emission tomography (PET) and PET/CT in prostate cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2013;64: 106-117.
60. Seltzer MA, Jahan SA, Sparks R, et al. Radiation dose estimates in humans for 11C-acetate whole-body PET. J Nucl Med. 2004;45: 1233-1236.
61. Osborne JR, Akhtar NH, Vallabhajosula S, Anand A, Deh K, Tagawa ST. Prostatespecific membrane antigen-based imaging. Urol Oncol. 2013;31: 144-154.
62. Afshar-Oromieh A, Haberkorn U, Schlemmer HP, et al. Comparison of PET/CT and PET/MRI hybrid systems using a 68Ga-labelled PSMA ligand for the diagnosis of recurrent prostate cancer: Initial experience. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;41: 887-897.
63. Souvatzoglou M, Eiber M, Takei T, 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;40: 1486-1499.
64. Wetter A, Lipponer C, Nensa F, et al. Evaluation of the PET component of simultaneous [18F]choline PET/MRI in prostate cancer: Comparison with [18F] choline PET/CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;41: 79-88.
65. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: Non-Hodgkin's lymphomas V.2.2015. National Comprehensive Cancer Network website. http://www.nccn. org/professionals/physician-gls/pdf/nhl.pdf. Accessed May 19, 2015.
66. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: Hodgkin lymphomas V.2.2015. National Comprehensive Cancer Network website. http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician-gls/pdf/hodgkins.pdf. Accessed May 19, 2015.
67. Cheson BD, Fisher RI, Barrington SF, et al. Recommendations for initial evaluation, staging, and response assessment of Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma: The Lugano classification. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32: 3059-3068.
68. Cheson BD. Staging and response assessment in lymphomas: The new Lugano classification. Chin Clin Oncol. 2015;4: 5.
69. Heacock L, Weissbrot J, Raad R, et al. PET/MRI for the evaluation of patients with lymphoma: Initial observations. AJR. 2015;204: 842-848.
70. Brenner DJ, Hall EJ. Computed tomography: An increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med. 2007;357: 2277-2284.
71. Miglioretti DL, Johnson E, Williams A, et al. The use of computed tomography in pediatrics and the associated radiation exposure and estimated cancer risk. JAMA Pediatr. 2013;167: 700-707.
72. Shah DJ, Sachs RK, Wilson DJ. Radiation-induced cancer: A modern view. Br J Radiol. 2012;85: E1166-e1173.
73. Siegel JA, Welsh JS. Does imaging technology cause cancer? Debunking the linear no-threshold model of radiation carcinogenesis. Technol Cancer Res Treat. March 30, 2015 (Epub ahead of print).
74. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: Neuroendocrine tumors V.1.2015. National Comprehensive Cancer Network website. http://www.nccn. org/professionals/physician-gls/pdf/neuroendocrine.pdf. Accessed May 19, 2015.
75. Herrmann K, Czernin J, Wolin EM, et al. Impact of 68Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT on the management of neuroendocrine tumors: The referring physician's perspective. J Nucl Med. 2015;56: 70-75.
76. Gaertner FC, Beer AJ, Souvatzoglou M, et al. Evaluation of feasibility and image quality of 68Ga-DOTATOC positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance in comparison with positron emission tomography/computed tomography in patients with neuroendocrine tumors. Invest Radiol. 2013;48: 263-272.
77. Hope TA, Pampaloni MH, Nakakura E, et al. Simultaneous 68Ga-DOTA-TOC PET/MRI with gadoxetate disodium in patients with neuroendocrine tumor. Abdom Imaging. 2015;40: 1432-1440.
78. Gralow JR, Biermann JS, Farooki A, et al. NCCN task force report: Bone health in cancer care. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2013;11(suppl 3): S1-S50.
79. Eiber M, Takei T, Souvatzoglou M, et al. Performance of whole-body integrated 18F-FDG PET/MR in comparison to PET/CT for evaluation of malignant bone lesions. J Nucl Med. 2014;55: 191-197.
80. Beiderwellen K, Huebner M, Heusch P, et al. Whole-body [18F]FDG PET/MRI vs. PET/CT in the assessment of bone lesions in oncological patients: Initial results. Eur Radiol. 2014;24: 2023-2030.
81. Catalano OA, Nicolai E, Rosen BR, et al. Comparison of CE-FDG-PET/CT with CE-FDG-PET/MR in the evaluation of osseous metastases in breast cancer patients. Br J Cancer. 2015;112: 1452-1460.
82. Bailey DL, Antoch G, Bartenstein P, et al. Combined PET/MR: The real work has just started. summary report of the Third International Workshop on PET/MR Imaging; February 17-21, 2014, Tubingen, Germany. Mol Imaging Biol. 2015;17: 297-312.
83. Schäfer JF, Gatidis S, Schmidt H, et al. Simultaneous whole-body PET/MR imaging in comparison to PET/CT in pediatric oncology: Initial results. Radiology. 2014;273: 220-231.
84. Afshar-Oromieh A, Wolf MB, Kratochwil C, et al. Comparison of 68Ga-DOTATOC- PET/CT and PET/MRI hybrid systems in patients with cranial meningioma: Initial results. Neuro-Oncol. 2015;17: 312-319.
85. 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: 845-855.
86. Quick HH, von Gall C, Zeilinger M, et al. Integrated whole-body PET/MR hybrid imaging: Clinical experience. Invest Radiol. 2013;48: 280-289.
87. Al-Nabhani KZ, Syed R, Michopoulou S, et al. Qualitative and quantitative comparison of PET/CT and PET/MR imaging in clinical practice. J Nucl Med. 2014;55: 88-94.
88. 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: 857-869.
89. Wiesmüller M, Quick HH, Navalpakkam B, 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: 12-21.
90. Appenzeller P, Mader C, Huellner MW, et al. PET/CT versus body coil PET/MRI: How low can you go? Insights Imaging. 2013;4: 481-490.
91. Jeong JH, Cho IH, Kong EJ, Chun KA. Evaluation of Dixon sequence on hybrid PET/MR compared with contrast-enhanced PET/CT for PET-positive lesions. Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;48: 26-32.
92. Huellner MW, Appenzeller P, Kuhn FP, et al. Whole-body nonenhanced PET/MR versus PET/CT in the staging and restaging of cancers: Preliminary observations. Radiology. 2014;273: 859-869.
93. Tian J, Fu L, Yin D, et al. Does the novel integrated PET/MRI offer the same diagnostic performance as PET/CT for oncological indications? PLoS One. 2014;9: E90844.
94. Heusch P, Nensa F, Schaarschmidt B, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of whole-body PET/MRI and whole-body PET/CT for TNM staging in oncology. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015;42: 42-48.
95. Schaarschmidt BM, Grueneisen J, Heusch P, et al. Oncological whole-body staging in integrated 18F-FDG PET/MR: Value of different MR sequences for simultaneous PET and MR reading. Eur J Radiol. 2015;84: 1285-1292.
96. Weber WA. PET/MR imaging: A critical appraisal. J Nucl Med. 2014;55(suppl): 56S-58S.