Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Annals of Nuclear Medicine
Published in: Annals of Nuclear Medicine 3/2016

01-04-2016 | Original Article

Comparison of integrated whole-body PET/MR and PET/CT: Is PET/MR alternative to PET/CT in routine clinical oncology?

Authors: Shirou Ishii, Daisuke Shimao, Takamitsu Hara, Masayuki Miyajima, Ken Kikuchi, Masashi Takawa, Kensuke Kumamoto, Hiroshi Ito, Fumio Shishido

Published in: Annals of Nuclear Medicine | Issue 3/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

To compare the diagnostic accuracy of whole-body PET/CT and integrated PET/MR in relation to the total scan time durations.

Methods

One hundred and twenty-three (123) patients (40 males and 83 females; mean age 59.6 years; range 20–83 years) with confirmed primary cancer and clinical suspicion of metastatic disease underwent whole-body 18F-FDG-PET/CT and 18F-FDG-PET/MR. Data acquisition was done after intravenous administration of 110–301 MBq radioactivity of 18F-FDG, and PET/MR data were acquired after the PET/CT data acquisition. The mean uptake times for PET/CT and PET/MR acquisition were 68.0 ± 8.0 and 98.0 ± 14 min, respectively. Total scan time was 20.0 and 25.0 min for whole-body PET/CT and PET/MR imaging.

Results

The reconstructed PET/CT and PET/MR data detected 333/355 (93.8 %) common lesions in 111/123 (90.2 %) patients. PET/CT and PET/MR alone detected 348/355 and 340/355 lesions, respectively. No significant (p = 0.08) difference was observed for the overall detection efficiency between the two techniques. On the other hand, a significant difference was observed between the two techniques for the detection of lung (p = 0.003) and cerebrospinal (p = 0.007) lesions. The 15 lesions identified by PET/CT only included 8 lung, 3 lymph nodes, 2 bone, and 1 each of peritoneal and adrenal gland lesions. On the other hand, 7 (6 brain metastatic lesions and 1 bone lesion) were identified by PET/MR only.

Conclusion

Integrated PET/MR is a feasible whole-body imaging modality and may score better than PET/CT for the detection of brain metastases. To further prove diagnostic utility, this technique requires further clinical validation.
Literature
1.
Czernin J, Herrmann K. The potential of PET/MRI imaging in oncology: a comment to a summary report of the first PET/MRI workshop in Tuebingen in 2012. Mol Imaging Biol. 2013;15:372–3.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
2.
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(Supplement 2):59S–62S.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Eiber M, Takei T, Souvatzoglou M, Mayerhoefer ME, Fürst S, Gaertner FC, 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;55:191–7.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Huellner MW, Appenzeller P, Kuhn FP, Husmann L, Pietsch CM, Burger IA, et al. Whole-body nonenhanced PET/MR versus PET/CT in the staging and restaging of cancers: preliminary observations. Radiology. 2014;273:859–69.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Afshar-Oromieh A, Haberkorn U, Schlemmer HP, Fenchel M, Eder M, Eisenhut M, et al. Comparison of PET/CT and PET/MRI hybrid systems using a 68 Ga-labelled PSMA ligand for the diagnosis of recurrent prostate cancer: initial experience. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;41:887–97.CrossRefPubMed
6.
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;40:1486–99.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Partovi S, Kohan A, Vercher-Conejero JL, Rubbert C, Margevicius S, Schluchter MD, et al. Qualitative and quantitative performance of 18F-FDG-PET/MRI versus 18F-FDG-PET/CT in patients with head and neck cancer. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2014;35:1970–5.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Varoquaux A, Rager O, Poncet A, Delattre BM, Ratib O, Becker CD, et al. Detection and quantification of focal uptake in head and neck tumours: (18)F-FDG PET/MR versus PET/CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;41:462–75.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
9.
Boss A, Bisdas S, Kolb A, Hofmann M, Ernemann U, Claussen CD, et al. Hybrid PET/MRI of intracranial masses: initial experiences and comparison to PET/CT. J Nucl Med. 2010;51:1198–205.CrossRefPubMed
10.
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.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Quick HH, von Gall C, Zeilinger M, Wiesmüller M, Braun H, Ziegler S, et al. Integrated whole-body PET/MR hybrid imaging: clinical experience. Invest Radiol. 2013;48:280–9.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Al-Nabhani KZ, Syed R, Michopoulou S, Alkalbani J, Afaq A, Panagiotidis E, et al. Qualitative and quantitative comparison of PET/CT and PET/MR imaging in clinical practice. J Nucl Med. 2014;55:88–94.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Catalano OA, Rosen BR, Sahani DV, Hahn PF, Guimaraes AR, Vangel MG, 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;269:857–69.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Delso G, Furst S, Jakoby B, Ladebeck R, Ganter C, Nekolla SG, et al. Performance measurements of the siemens mMR integrated whole-body PET/MR scanner. J Nucl Med. 2011;52:1914–22.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Rauscher I, Eiber M, Fürst S, Souvatzoglou M, Nekolla SG, Ziegler SI, 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;55:724–9.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Stolzmann P, Veit-Haibach P, Chuck N, Rossi C, Frauenfelder T, Alkadhi H, 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;48:241–6.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Chandarana H, Heacock L, Rakheja R, DeMello LR, Bonavita J, Block TK, et al. Pulmonary nodules in patients with primary malignancy: comparison of hybrid PET/MR and PET/CT imaging. Radiology. 2013;268:874–81.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Akamatsu G, Ishikawa K, Mitsumoto K, Taniguchi T, Ohya N, Baba S, et al. Improvement in PET/CT image quality with a combination of point-spread function and time-of-flight in relation to reconstruction parameters. J Nucl Med. 2012;53:1716–22.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Prieto E, Domínguez-Prado I, García-Velloso MJ, Peñuelas I, Richter JÁ, Martí-Climent JM. Impact of time-of-flight and point-spread-function in SUV quantification for oncological PET. Clin Nucl Med. 2013;38:103–9.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Zhuang H, Pourdehnad M, Lambright ES, Yamamoto AJ, Lanuti M, Li P, et al. Dual time point 18F-FDG PET imaging for differentiating malignant from inflammatory processes. J Nucl Med. 2001;42:1412–7.PubMed
21.
Lan XL, Zhang YX, Wu ZJ, Jia Q, Wei H, Gao ZR. The value of dual time point (18)F-FDG PET imaging for the differentiation between malignant and benign lesions. Clin Radiol. 2008;63:756–64.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Comparison of integrated whole-body PET/MR and PET/CT: Is PET/MR alternative to PET/CT in routine clinical oncology?
Authors
Shirou Ishii
Daisuke Shimao
Takamitsu Hara
Masayuki Miyajima
Ken Kikuchi
Masashi Takawa
Kensuke Kumamoto
Hiroshi Ito
Fumio Shishido
Publication date
01-04-2016
Publisher
Springer Japan
Published in
Annals of Nuclear Medicine / Issue 3/2016
Print ISSN: 0914-7187
Electronic ISSN: 1864-6433
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12149-015-1050-y

Other articles of this Issue 3/2016

Annals of Nuclear Medicine 3/2016 Go to the issue

Original Article

18F-FDG and 18F-FLT PET/CT imaging in the characterization of mediastinal lymph nodes

Review Article

Normal values and standardization of parameters in nuclear cardiology: Japanese Society of Nuclear Medicine working group database

Original Article

Development of a simple non-invasive microsphere quantification method for cerebral blood flow using I-123-IMP

Original Article

Heterogeneity of intrahepatic fat distribution determined by 18F-FDG PET and CT

Original Article

Multimodal imaging with 18F-FDG-PET/CT and 111In-Octreotide SPECT in patients with metastatic medullary thyroid carcinoma

Case Report

FDG PET/CT allowing detection and follow-up of tumor cell transplantation