Top

European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging

Published in:

01-06-2017 | Original Article

¹⁸F-FDG PET/MRI in patients suffering from lymphoma: how much MRI information is really needed?

Authors: Julian Kirchner, Cornelius Deuschl, Johannes Grueneisen, Ken Herrmann, Michael Forsting, Philipp Heusch, Gerald Antoch, Lale Umutlu

Published in: European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging | Issue 6/2017

Abstract

Objectives

To evaluate and compare the diagnostic potential of different reading protocols, entailing non-enhanced/contrast-enhanced and diffusion-weighted ¹⁸F-FDG PET/MR imaging for lesion detection and determination of the tumor stage in lymphoma patients.

Methods

A total of 101 ¹⁸F-FDG PET/MRI datasets including a (1) transverse T2-w HASTE and ¹⁸F-FDG PET (PET/MRI₁), (2) with an additional contrast enhanced VIBE (PET/MRI₂), and (3) with additional diffusion-weighted imaging (PET/MRI₃) were evaluated. Scans were performed for initial staging, restaging during treatment, or at the end of treatment and under surveillance with suspicion for tumor relapse. In all datasets lymphoma manifestations as well as tumor stage in analogy to the revised criteria of the Ann Arbor staging system were determined. Furthermore, potential changes in therapy compared to the reference standard were evaluated. Hitherto performed PET/CT and all available follow-up and prior examinations as well as histopathology served as reference standard.

Results

PET/MRI₁ correctly identified 53/55 patients with active lymphoma and 190/205 lesions. Respective values were 55/55, 202/205 for PET/MRI₂ and 55/55, 205/205 for PET/MRI₃. PET/MRI₁ determined correct tumor stage in 88 out of 101 examinations, and corresponding results for PET/MRI₂ were 95 out of 101 and 96 out of 101 in PET/MRI₃. Relating to the reference standard changes in treatment would occur in 11% based on PET/MRI₁, in 6% based on PET/MRI₂, and in 3% based on PET/MRI₃.

Conclusions

The additional application of contrast-enhanced and diffusion-weighted imaging to ¹⁸F-FDG PET/MRI resulted in higher diagnostic competence, particularly for initial staging and correct classification of the disease extent with potential impact on patient and therapy management.

Ryerson AB, Eheman CR, Altekruse SF, Ward JW, Jemal A, Sherman RL, et al. Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1975-2012, featuring the increasing incidence of liver cancer. Cancer. 2016;122:1312–37. doi:10.1002/cncr.29936.CrossRefPubMed

Lin C, Itti E, Haioun C, Petegnief Y, Luciani A, Dupuis J, et al. Early ¹⁸F-FDG PET for prediction of prognosis in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: SUV-based assessment versus visual analysis. J Nucl Med : Off Publ, Soc Nucl Med. 2007;48:1626–32. doi:10.2967/jnumed.107.042093.CrossRef

El-Galaly TC, Hutchings M. Imaging of non-Hodgkin lymphomas: diagnosis and response-adapted strategies. Cancer Treat Res. 2015;165:125–46. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-13150-4_5.CrossRefPubMed

Barrington SF, Mikhaeel NG, Kostakoglu L, Meignan M, Hutchings M, Mueller SP, et al. Role of imaging in the staging and response assessment of lymphoma: consensus of the International Conference on Malignant Lymphomas Imaging Working Group. J Clin Oncol : Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2014;32:3048–58. doi:10.1200/jco.2013.53.5229.CrossRef

Townsend W, Linch D. Hodgkin’s lymphoma in adults. Lancet. 2012;380:836–47. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(12)60035-x.CrossRefPubMed

Cheson BD, Fisher RI, Barrington SF, Cavalli F, Schwartz LH, Zucca E, et al. Recommendations for initial evaluation, staging, and response assessment of Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma: the Lugano classification. J Clin Oncol : Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2014;32:3059–68. doi:10.1200/JCO.2013.54.8800.CrossRef

Cheson BD. Role of functional imaging in the management of lymphoma. J Clin Oncol : Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2011;29:1844–54. doi:10.1200/jco.2010.32.5225.CrossRef

Metser U, Mohan R, Beckley V, Moshonov H, Hodgson D, Murphy G. FDG PET/CT response assessment criteria for patients with Hodgkin’s and Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma at end of therapy: a multiparametric approach. Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016;50:46–53. doi:10.1007/s13139-015-0368-7.CrossRefPubMed

Hutchings M, Barrington SF. PET/CT for therapy response assessment in lymphoma. J Nucl Med : Off Publ, Soc Nucl Med. 2009;50 Suppl 1:21s–30s. doi:10.2967/jnumed.108.057190.CrossRef

10.

Bosetti C, Levi F, Ferlay J, Lucchini F, Negri E, La Vecchia C. Incidence and mortality from non-Hodgkin lymphoma in Europe: the end of an epidemic? Int J Cancer J Int Cancer. 2008;123:1917–23. doi:10.1002/ijc.23722.CrossRef

11.

Brenner DJ, Elliston CD. Estimated radiation risks potentially associated with full-body CT screening. Radiology. 2004;232:735–8. doi:10.1148/radiol.2323031095.CrossRefPubMed

12.

Heacock L, Weissbrot J, Raad R, Campbell N, Friedman KP, Ponzo F, et al. PET/MRI for the evaluation of patients with lymphoma: initial observations. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015;204:842–8. doi:10.2214/AJR.14.13181.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

13.

Atkinson W, Catana C, Abramson JS, Arabasz G, McDermott S, Catalano O, et al. Hybrid FDG-PET/MR compared to FDG-PET/CT in adult lymphoma patients. Abdominal Radiol. 2016;41:1338–48. doi:10.1007/s00261-016-0638-6.CrossRef

14.

Herrmann K, Queiroz M, Huellner MW, de Galiza BF, Buck A, Schaefer N, et al. Diagnostic performance of FDG-PET/MRI and WB-DW-MRI in the evaluation of lymphoma: a prospective comparison to standard FDG-PET/CT. BMC Cancer. 2015;15:1002. doi:10.1186/s12885-015-2009-z.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

15.

Grueneisen J, Sawicki LM, Schaarschmidt BM, Suntharalingam S, von der Ropp S, Wetter A, et al. Evaluation of a fast protocol for staging lymphoma patients with integrated PET/MRI. PLoS One. 2016;11:e0157880. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0157880.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

16.

Ghielmini M, Vitolo U, Kimby E, Montoto S, Walewski J, Pfreundschuh M, et al. ESMO Guidelines consensus conference on malignant lymphoma 2011 part 1: diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), follicular lymphoma (FL) and chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). Ann Oncol : Off J Eur Soc Med Oncol. 2013;24:561–76. doi:10.1093/annonc/mds517.CrossRef

17.

Eichenauer DA, Engert A, Andre M, Federico M, Illidge T, Hutchings M, et al. Hodgkin’s lymphoma: ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol : Off J Eur Soc Med Oncol. 2014;25 Suppl 3:iii70–5. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdu181.CrossRef

18.

Quick HH. Integrated PET/MR. J Magn Resonance Imaging : JMRI. 2014;39:243–58. doi:10.1002/jmri.24523.CrossRefPubMed

19.

Johnson SA, Kumar A, Matasar MJ, Schoder H, Rademaker J. Imaging for staging and response assessment in lymphoma. Radiology. 2015;276:323–38. doi:10.1148/radiol.2015142088.CrossRefPubMed

20.

Meignan M, Gallamini A, Meignan M, Gallamini A, Haioun C. Report on the first international workshop on interim-PET-scan in lymphoma. Leukemia Lymphoma. 2009;50:1257–60. doi:10.1080/10428190903040048.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Antoch G, Stattaus J, Nemat AT, Marnitz S, Beyer T, Kuehl H, et al. Non-small cell lung cancer: dual-modality PET/CT in preoperative staging. Radiology. 2003;229:526–33. doi:10.1148/radiol.2292021598.CrossRefPubMed

22.

Wu X, Kellokumpu-Lehtinen PL, Pertovaara H, Korkola P, Soimakallio S, Eskola H, et al. Diffusion-weighted MRI in early chemotherapy response evaluation of patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma—a pilot study: comparison with 2-deoxy-2-fluoro-D-glucose-positron emission tomography/computed tomography. NMR Biomed. 2011;24:1181–90. doi:10.1002/nbm.1689.CrossRefPubMed

23.

Cheson BD. Staging and response assessment in lymphomas: the new Lugano classification. Chin Clin Oncol. 2015;4:5. doi:10.3978/j.issn.2304-3865.2014.11.03.PubMed

24.

Schafer JF, Gatidis S, Schmidt H, Guckel B, Bezrukov I, Pfannenberg CA, et al. Simultaneous whole-body PET/MR imaging in comparison to PET/CT in pediatric oncology: initial results. Radiology. 2014;273:220–31. doi:10.1148/radiol.14131732.CrossRefPubMed

25.

Reiner CS, Stolzmann P, Husmann L, Burger IA, Hullner MW, Schaefer NG, et al. Protocol requirements and diagnostic value of PET/MR imaging for liver metastasis detection. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;41:649–58. doi:10.1007/s00259-013-2654-x.CrossRefPubMed

26.

Guay C, Lepine M, Verreault J, Benard F. Prognostic value of PET using ¹⁸F-FDG in Hodgkin’s disease for posttreatment evaluation. J Nucl Med : Off Publ, Soc Nucl Med. 2003;44:1225–31.

27.

Cremerius U, Fabry U, Neuerburg J, Zimny M, Osieka R, Buell U. Positron emission tomography with ¹⁸F-FDG to detect residual disease after therapy for malignant lymphoma. Nucl Med Commun. 1998;19:1055–63.CrossRefPubMed

28.

Brix G, Nosske D, Lechel U. Radiation exposure of patients undergoing whole-body FDG-PET/CT examinations: an update pursuant to the new ICRP recommendations. Nuklearmedizin Nucl Med. 2014;53:217–20. doi:10.3413/Nukmed-0663-14-04.CrossRef

29.

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. doi:10.2967/jnumed.111.098608.CrossRefPubMed

30.

Antoch G, Bockisch A. Combined PET/MRI: a new dimension in whole-body oncology imaging? Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2009;36 Suppl 1:S113–20. doi:10.1007/s00259-008-0951-6.CrossRefPubMed

31.

Platzek I, Beuthien-Baumann B, Ordemann R, Maus J, Schramm G, Kitzler HH, et al. FDG PET/MR for the assessment of lymph node involvement in lymphoma: initial results and role of diffusion-weighted MR. Acad Radiol. 2014;21:1314–9. doi:10.1016/j.acra.2014.05.019.CrossRefPubMed

32.

Grueneisen J, Schaarschmidt BM, Heubner M, Suntharalingam S, Milk I, Kinner S, et al. Implementation of FAST-PET/MRI for whole-body staging of female patients with recurrent pelvic malignancies: a comparison to PET/CT. Eur J Radiol. 2015;84:2097–102. doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2015.08.010.CrossRefPubMed

33.

Buchbender C, Hartung-Knemeyer V, Beiderwellen K, Heusch P, Kuhl H, Lauenstein TC, 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;82:877–82. doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2013.01.019.CrossRefPubMed

34.

Afaq A, Fraioli F, Sidhu H, Wan S, Punwani S, Chen SH, et al. Comparison of PET/MRI with PET/CT in the evaluation of disease status in lymphoma. Clin Nucl Med. 2016. doi:10.1097/rlu.0000000000001344.

35.

Kuhn FP, Hullner M, Mader CE, Kastrinidis N, Huber GF, von Schulthess GK, 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 : Off Publ, Soc Nucl Med. 2014;55:551–8. doi:10.2967/jnumed.113.125443.CrossRef

36.

Giraudo C, Raderer M, Karanikas G, Weber M, Kiesewetter B, Dolak W, et al. ¹⁸F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance in lymphoma: comparison with ¹⁸F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography and with the addition of magnetic resonance diffusion-weighted imaging. Investig Radiol. 2016;51:163–9. doi:10.1097/rli.0000000000000218.CrossRef

37.

Park SH, Lee JJ, Kim HO, Lee DY, Suh C, Jung HY, et al. ¹⁸F-Fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)-positron emission tomography/computed tomography in mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue lymphoma: variation in ¹⁸F-FDG avidity according to site involvement. Leukemia Lymphoma. 2015;56:3288–94. doi:10.3109/10428194.2015.1030640.CrossRefPubMed

38.

Punwani S, Taylor SA, Saad ZZ, Bainbridge A, Groves A, Daw S, et al. Diffusion-weighted MRI of lymphoma: prognostic utility and implications for PET/MRI? Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;40:373–85. doi:10.1007/s00259-012-2293-7.CrossRefPubMed

39.

Sawicki LM, Grueneisen J, Schaarschmidt BM, Buchbender C, Nagarajah J, Umutlu L, et al. Evaluation of (1)(8)F-FDG PET/MRI, (1)(8)F-FDG PET/CT, MRI, and CT in whole-body staging of recurrent breast cancer. Eur J Radiol. 2016;85:459–65. doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2015.12.010.CrossRefPubMed

40.

Beiderwellen K, Gomez B, Buchbender C, Hartung V, Poeppel TD, Nensa F, et al. Depiction and characterization of liver lesions in whole body [(1)(8)F]-FDG PET/MRI. Eur J Radiol. 2013;82:e669–75. doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2013.07.027.CrossRefPubMed

Title: 18F-FDG PET/MRI in patients suffering from lymphoma: how much MRI information is really needed?
Authors: Julian Kirchner
Cornelius Deuschl
Johannes Grueneisen
Ken Herrmann
Michael Forsting
Philipp Heusch
Gerald Antoch
Lale Umutlu
Publication date: 01-06-2017
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging / Issue 6/2017
Print ISSN: 1619-7070
Electronic ISSN: 1619-7089
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-017-3635-2

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

¹⁸F-FDG PET/MRI in patients suffering from lymphoma: how much MRI information is really needed?

Abstract

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 6/2017

Changes in dorsolateral prefrontal connectivity after rTMS in treatment-resistant depression: a brain perfusion SPECT study

Refining prognosis in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma through incorporation of metabolic imaging biomarkers

Test–retest measurements of dopamine D1-type receptors using simultaneous PET/MRI imaging

Predicting the outcome of peptide receptor radionuclide therapy in neuroendocrine tumors: the importance of dual-tracer imaging

The added value of SPECT-CT for the identification of sentinel lymph nodes in early stage oral cancer

In memoriam Professor Jan van der Schoot (1927–2017)