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

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging
Published in: European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 5/2021

01-05-2021 | Magnetic Resonance Imaging | Guidelines

An international expert opinion statement on the utility of PET/MR for imaging of skeletal metastases

Authors: Jad S. Husseini, Bárbara Juarez Amorim, Angel Torrado-Carvajal, Vinay Prabhu, David Groshar, Lale Umutlu, Ken Herrmann, Lina García Cañamaque, José Ramón García Garzón, William E. Palmer, Pedram Heidari, Tiffany Ting-Fang Shih, Jacob Sosna, Cristina Matushita, Juliano Cerci, Marcelo Queiroz, Valdair Francisco Muglia, Marcello H. Nogueira-Barbosa, Ronald J. H. Borra, Thomas C. Kwee, Andor W. J. M. Glaudemans, Laura Evangelista, Marco Salvatore, Alberto Cuocolo, Andrea Soricelli, Christian Herold, Andrea Laghi, Marius Mayerhoefer, Umar Mahmood, Ciprian Catana, Heike E. Daldrup-Link, Bruce Rosen, Onofrio A. Catalano

Published in: European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging | Issue 5/2021

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

MR is an important imaging modality for evaluating musculoskeletal malignancies owing to its high soft tissue contrast and its ability to acquire multiparametric information. PET provides quantitative molecular and physiologic information and is a critical tool in the diagnosis and staging of several malignancies. PET/MR, which can take advantage of its constituent modalities, is uniquely suited for evaluating skeletal metastases. We reviewed the current evidence of PET/MR in assessing for skeletal metastases and provided recommendations for its use.

Methods

We searched for the peer reviewed literature related to the usage of PET/MR in the settings of osseous metastases. In addition, expert opinions, practices, and protocols of major research institutions performing research on PET/MR of skeletal metastases were considered.

Results

Peer-reviewed published literature was included. Nuclear medicine and radiology experts, including those from 13 major PET/MR centers, shared the gained expertise on PET/MR use for evaluating skeletal metastases and contributed to a consensus expert opinion statement. [18F]-FDG and non [18F]-FDG PET/MR may provide key advantages over PET/CT in the evaluation for osseous metastases in several primary malignancies.

Conclusion

PET/MR should be considered for staging of malignancies where there is a high likelihood of osseous metastatic disease based on the characteristics of the primary malignancy, hight clinical suspicious and in case, where the presence of osseous metastases will have an impact on patient management. Appropriate choice of tumor-specific radiopharmaceuticals, as well as stringent adherence to PET and MR protocols, should be employed.
Literature
1.
Vandenberghe S, Marsden PK. PET-MRI: a review of challenges and solutions in the development of integrated multimodality imaging. Phys Med Biol. 2015;60:R115–54.PubMedCrossRef
2.
Wagenknecht G, Kaiser H-J, Mottaghy FM, Herzog H. MRI for attenuation correction in PET: methods and challenges. MAGMA. 2013;26:99–113.PubMedCrossRef
3.
Catana C, Quick HH, Zaidi H. Current commercial techniques for MRI-guided attenuation correction are insufficient and will limit the wider acceptance of PET/MRI technology in the clinic. Med Phys. 2018;
4.
Burger C, Goerres G, Schoenes S, Buck A, Lonn AHR, Von Schulthess GK. PET attenuation coefficients from CT images: experimental evaluation of the transformation of CT into PET 511-keV attenuation coefficients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2002;29:922–7.PubMedCrossRef
5.
Kinahan PE, Townsend DW, Beyer T, Sashin D. Attenuation correction for a combined 3D PET/CT scanner. Med Phys. 1998;25:2046–53.PubMedCrossRef
6.
Andersen FL, Ladefoged CN, Beyer T, Keller SH, Hansen AE, Højgaard L, et al. Combined PET/MR imaging in neurology: MR-based attenuation correction implies a strong spatial bias when ignoring bone. NeuroImage. 2014;84:206–16.PubMedCrossRef
7.
Izquierdo-Garcia D, Catana C. Magnetic resonance imaging-guided attenuation correction of positron emission tomography data in PET/MRI. PET Clin. 2016;11:129–49.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
8.
Hofmann M, Steinke F, Scheel V, Charpiat G, Farquhar J, Aschoff P, et al. MRI-based attenuation correction for PET/MRI: a novel approach combining pattern recognition and atlas registration. J Nucl Med. 2008;49:1875–83.PubMedCrossRef
9.
Eiber M, Martinez-Möller A, Souvatzoglou M, Holzapfel K, Pickhard A, Löffelbein D, 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;38:1691–701.PubMedCrossRef
10.
Martinez-Möller A, Souvatzoglou M, Delso G, Bundschuh RA, Chefd’hotel C, Ziegler SI, et al. Tissue classification as a potential approach for attenuation correction in whole-body PET/MRI: evaluation with PET/CT data. J Nucl Med. 2009;50:520–6.PubMedCrossRef
11.
Schulz V, Torres-Espallardo I, Renisch S, Hu Z, Ojha N, Börnert P, et al. Automatic, three-segment, MR-based attenuation correction for whole-body PET/MR data. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;38:138–52.PubMedCrossRef
12.
Catana C, van der Kouwe A, Benner T, Michel CJ, Hamm M, Fenchel M, et al. Towards implementing an MR-based PET attenuation correction method for neurological studies on the MR-PET brain prototype. J Nucl Med. 2010;51:1431–8.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
13.
Samarin A, Burger C, Wollenweber SD, Crook DW, Burger IA, Schmid DT, et al. PET/MR imaging of bone lesions--implications for PET quantification from imperfect attenuation correction. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012;39:1154–60.PubMedCrossRef
14.
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.PubMedCrossRef
15.
Mehranian A, Zaidi H. Impact of time-of-flight PET on quantification errors in MR imaging-based attenuation correction. J Nucl Med. 2015;56:635–41.PubMedCrossRef
16.
Paulus DH, Quick HH, Geppert C, Fenchel M, Zhan Y, Hermosillo G, et al. Whole-body PET/MR imaging: quantitative evaluation of a novel model-based MR attenuation correction method including bone. J Nucl Med. 2015;56:1061–6.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
17.
Oehmigen M, Lindemann ME, Gratz M, Kirchner J, Ruhlmann V, Umutlu L, et al. Impact of improved attenuation correction featuring a bone atlas and truncation correction on PET quantification in whole-body PET/MR. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018;45:642–53.PubMedCrossRef
18.
Elschot M, Selnæs KM, Johansen H, Krüger-Stokke B, Bertilsson H, Bathen TF. The effect of including bone in Dixon-based attenuation correction for 18F-Fluciclovine PET/MRI of prostate Cancer. J Nucl Med. 2018;59:1913–7.PubMedCrossRef
19.
Domachevsky L, Goldberg N, Gorenberg M, Bernstine H, Groshar D, Catalano OA. Prostate cancer evaluation using PET quantification in 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/MR with attenuation correction of bones as a fifth compartment. Quant Imaging Med Surg. 2020;10:40–7.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
20.
Berker Y, Franke J, Salomon A, Palmowski M, Donker HCW, Temur Y, et al. MRI-based attenuation correction for hybrid PET/MRI systems: a 4-class tissue segmentation technique using a combined ultrashort-echo-time/Dixon MRI sequence. J Nucl Med. 2012;53:796–804.PubMedCrossRef
21.
Sekine T, Ter Voert EEGW, Warnock G, Buck A, Huellner M, Veit-Haibach P, et al. Clinical evaluation of zero-echo-time attenuation correction for brain [18F]-FDG PET/MRI: comparison with atlas attenuation correction. J Nucl Med. 2016;57:1927–32.PubMedCrossRef
22.
Poynton CB, Chen KT, Chonde DB, Izquierdo-Garcia D, Gollub RL, Gerstner ER, et al. Probabilistic atlas-based segmentation of combined T1-weighted and DUTE MRI for calculation of head attenuation maps in integrated PET/MRI scanners. Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;4:160–71.PubMedPubMedCentral
23.
Santos Ribeiro A, Rota Kops E, Herzog H, Almeida P. Hybrid approach for attenuation correction in PET/MR scanners. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Re0073. 2014;734:166–70.CrossRef
24.
Han X. MR-based synthetic CT generation using a deep convolutional neural network method. Med Phys. 2017;44:1408–19.PubMedCrossRef
25.
Liu F, Jang H, Kijowski R, Bradshaw T, McMillan AB. Deep learning MR imaging-based attenuation correction for PET/MR imaging. Radiology. 2018;286:676–84.PubMedCrossRef
26.
Torrado-Carvajal A, Vera-Olmos J, Izquierdo-Garcia D, Catalano OA, Morales MA, Margolin J, et al. Dixon-VIBE deep learning (DIVIDE) pseudo-CT synthesis for pelvis PET/MR attenuation correction. J Nucl Med. 2019;60:429–35.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
27.
Muehe AM, Theruvath AJ, Lai L, Aghighi M, Quon A, Holdsworth SJ, et al. How to provide gadolinium-free PET/MR cancer staging of children and young adults in less than 1 h: the Stanford Approach. Mol Imaging Biol. 2018;20:324–35.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
28.
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.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
29.
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. Abdom Radiol (N Y). 2016;41:1338–48.CrossRef
30.
Melsaether AN, Raad RA, Pujara AC, Ponzo FD, Pysarenko KM, Jhaveri K, et al. Comparison of whole-body (18)F FDG PET/MR imaging and whole-body (18)F FDG PET/CT in terms of lesion detection and radiation dose in patients with breast Cancer. Radiology. 2016;281:193–202.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
31.
Sher AC, Seghers V, Paldino MJ, Dodge C, Krishnamurthy R, Krishnamurthy R, et al. Assessment of sequential PET/MRI in comparison with PET/CT of pediatric lymphoma: a prospective study. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2016;206:623–31.PubMedCrossRef
32.
Queiroz MA, Delso G, Wollenweber S, Deller T, Zeimpekis K, Huellner M, et al. Dose optimization in TOF-PET/MR compared to TOF-PET/CT. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0128842.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
33.
Oehmigen M, Ziegler S, Jakoby BW, Georgi J-C, Paulus DH, Quick HH. Radiotracer dose reduction in integrated PET/MR: implications from national electrical manufacturers association phantom studies. J Nucl Med. 2014;55:1361–7.PubMedCrossRef
34.
35.
Bernard S, Walker E, Raghavan M. An approach to the evaluation of incidentally identified bone lesions encountered on imaging studies. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017;208:960–70.PubMedCrossRef
36.
Baur A, Stäbler A, Bartl R, Lamerz R, Scheidler J, Reiser M. MRI gadolinium enhancement of bone marrow: age-related changes in normals and in diffuse neoplastic infiltration. Skelet Radiol. 1997;26:414–8.CrossRef
37.
Mahnken AH, Wildberger JE, Adam G, Stanzel S, Schmitz-Rode T, Günther RW, et al. Is there a need for contrast-enhanced T1-weighted MRI of the spine after inconspicuous short tau inversion recovery imaging? Eur Radiol. 2005;15:1387–92.PubMedCrossRef
38.
39.
Montazel J-L, Divine M, Lepage E, Kobeiter H, Breil S, Rahmouni A. Normal spinal bone marrow in adults: dynamic gadolinium-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology. 2003;229:703–9.PubMedCrossRef
40.
Mirowitz SA, Apicella P, Reinus WR, Hammerman AM. MR imaging of bone marrow lesions: relative conspicuousness on T1-weighted, fat-suppressed T2-weighted, and STIR images. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1994;162:215–21.PubMedCrossRef
41.
Yang H-L, Liu T, Wang X-M, Xu Y, Deng S-M. Diagnosis of bone metastases: a meta-analysis comparing 18FDG PET, CT, MRI and bone scintigraphy. Eur Radiol. 2011;21:2604–17.PubMedCrossRef
42.
Costelloe CM, Rohren EM, Madewell JE, Hamaoka T, Theriault RL, Yu T-K, et al. Imaging bone metastases in breast cancer: techniques and recommendations for diagnosis. Lancet Oncol. 2009;10:606–14.PubMedCrossRef
43.
Talbot JN, Paycha F, Balogova S. Diagnosis of bone metastasis: recent comparative studies of imaging modalities. Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;55:374–410.PubMed
44.
Buhmann Kirchhoff S, Becker C, Duerr HR, Reiser M, Baur-Melnyk A. Detection of osseous metastases of the spine: comparison of high resolution multi-detector-CT with MRI. Eur J Radiol. 2009;69:567–73.PubMedCrossRef
45.
Tehranzadeh J, Mnaymneh W, Ghavam C, Morillo G, Murphy BJ. Comparison of CT and MR imaging in musculoskeletal neoplasms. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1989;13:466–72.PubMedCrossRef
46.
Aisen AM, Martel W, Braunstein EM, McMillin KI, Phillips WA, Kling TF. MRI and CT evaluation of primary bone and soft-tissue tumors. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1986;146:749–56.PubMedCrossRef
47.
Lange MB, Nielsen ML, Andersen JD, Lilholt HJ, Vyberg M, Petersen LJ. Diagnostic accuracy of imaging methods for the diagnosis of skeletal malignancies: a retrospective analysis against a pathology-proven reference. Eur J Radiol. 2016;85:61–7.PubMedCrossRef
48.
Yuh WT, Zachar CK, Barloon TJ, Sato Y, Sickels WJ, Hawes DR. Vertebral compression fractures: distinction between benign and malignant causes with MR imaging. Radiology. 1989;172:215–8.PubMedCrossRef
49.
Baker LL, Goodman SB, Perkash I, Lane B, Enzmann DR. Benign versus pathologic compression fractures of vertebral bodies: assessment with conventional spin-echo, chemical-shift, and STIR MR imaging. Radiology. 1990;174:495–502.PubMedCrossRef
50.
Jung H-S, Jee W-H, McCauley TR, Ha K-Y, Choi K-H. Discrimination of metastatic from acute osteoporotic compression spinal fractures with MR imaging. Radiographics. 2003;23:179–87.PubMedCrossRef
51.
Klenk C, Gawande R, Tran VT, Leung JT, Chi K, Owen D, et al. Progressing toward a cohesive pediatric [18F]-FDG PET/MR protocol: is administration of gadolinium chelates necessary? J Nucl Med. 2016;57:70–7.PubMedCrossRef
52.
Pezeshk P, Alian A, Chhabra A. Role of chemical shift and Dixon based techniques in musculoskeletal MR imaging. Eur J Radiol. 2017;94:93–100.PubMedCrossRef
53.
Nakanishi K, Kobayashi M, Nakaguchi K, Kyakuno M, Hashimoto N, Onishi H, et al. Whole-body MRI for detecting metastatic bone tumor: diagnostic value of diffusion-weighted images. Magn Reson Med Sci. 2007;6:147–55.PubMedCrossRef
54.
Pozzi G, Garcia Parra C, Stradiotti P, Tien TV, Luzzati A, Zerbi A. Diffusion-weighted MR imaging in differentiation between osteoporotic and neoplastic vertebral fractures. Eur Spine J. 2012;21:123–7.PubMedCentralCrossRef
55.
Weber M, Kessler L, Schaarschmidt B, Fendler WP, Lahner H, Antoch G, et al. Treatment-related changes in neuroendocrine tumors as assessed by textural features derived from 68Ga-DOTATOC PET/MRI with simultaneous acquisition of apparent diffusion coefficient. BMC Cancer. 2020;20:326.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
56.
Padhani AR, van Ree K, Collins DJ, D’Sa S, Makris A. Assessing the relation between bone marrow signal intensity and apparent diffusion coefficient in diffusion-weighted MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013;200:163–70.PubMedCrossRef
57.
Perez-Lopez R, Mateo J, Mossop H, Blackledge MD, Collins DJ, Rata M, et al. Diffusion-weighted imaging as a treatment response biomarker for evaluating bone metastases in prostate cancer: a pilot study. Radiology. 2017;283:168–77.PubMedCrossRef
58.
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.PubMedCrossRef
59.
Tian J, Fu L, Yin D, Zhang J, Chen Y, An N, et al. Does the novel integrated PET/MRI offer the same diagnostic performance as PET/CT for oncological indications? PLoS One. 2014;9:e90844.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
60.
Schwenzer NF, Schraml C, Müller M, Brendle C, Sauter A, Spengler W, et al. Pulmonary lesion assessment: comparison of whole-body hybrid MR/PET and PET/CT imaging--pilot study. Radiology. 2012;264:551–8.PubMedCrossRef
61.
Wiesmüller M, Quick HH, Navalpakkam B, Lell MM, Uder M, Ritt P, 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.PubMedCrossRef
62.
Pace L, Nicolai E, Luongo A, Aiello M, Catalano OA, Soricelli A, et al. Comparison of whole-body PET/CT and PET/MRI in breast cancer patients: lesion detection and quantitation of 18F-deoxyglucose uptake in lesions and in normal organ tissues. Eur J Radiol. 2014;83:289–96.PubMedCrossRef
63.
Groshar D, Bernstine H, Goldberg N, Nidam M, Stein D, Abadi-Korek I, et al. Reproducibility and repeatability of same-day two sequential FDG PET/MR and PET/CT. Cancer Imaging. 2017;17:11.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
64.
Samarin A, Hüllner M, Queiroz MA, Stolzmann P, Burger IA, von Schulthess G, et al. 18F-FDG-PET/MR increases diagnostic confidence in detection of bone metastases compared with 18F-FDG-PET/CT. Nucl Med Commun. 2015;36:1165–73.PubMedCrossRef
65.
Lin C-Y, Lin C-L, Kao C-H. Staging/restaging performance of F18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer: a review and meta-analysis. Eur J Radiol. 2018;107:158–65.PubMedCrossRef
66.
Catalano OA, Nicolai E, Rosen BR, Luongo A, Catalano M, Iannace C, 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;112:1452–60.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
67.
Botsikas D, Bagetakos I, Picarra M, Da Cunha Afonso Barisits AC, Boudabbous S, Montet X, et al. What is the diagnostic performance of 18-FDG-PET/MR compared to PET/CT for the N- and M- staging of breast cancer? Eur Radiol. 2019;29:1787–98.PubMedCrossRef
68.
Kwee TC, de Klerk JMH, Nix M, Heggelman BGF, Dubois SV, Adams HJA. Benign bone conditions that may be FDG-avid and mimic malignancy. Semin Nucl Med. 2017;47:322–51.PubMedCrossRef
69.
National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology- small cell lung cancer 2020. Available from: https://​www.​nccn.​org/​professionals/​physician_​gls/​pdf/​sclc.​pdf.​ Accessed Mar 28, 2020.
70.
National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology- non-small cell lung cancer 2020. Available from: https://​www.​nccn.​org/​professionals/​physician_​gls/​pdf/​nscl.​pdf.​ Accessed Mar 28, 2020.
71.
Schaarschmidt BM, Grueneisen J, Metzenmacher M, Gomez B, Gauler T, Roesel C, et al. Thoracic staging with [18F]-FDG PET/MR in non-small cell lung cancer - does it change therapeutic decisions in comparison to [18F]-FDG PET/CT? Eur Radiol. 2017;27:681–8.PubMedCrossRef
72.
Lee SM, Goo JM, Park CM, Yoon SH, Paeng JC, Cheon GJ, et al. Preoperative staging of non-small cell lung cancer: prospective comparison of PET/MR and PET/CT. Eur Radiol. 2016;26:3850–7.PubMedCrossRef
73.
Fraioli F, Screaton NJ, Janes SM, Win T, Menezes L, Kayani I, et al. Non-small-cell lung cancer resectability: diagnostic value of PET/MR. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015;42:49–55.PubMedCrossRef
74.
Ohno Y, Yoshikawa T, Kishida Y, Seki S, Koyama H, Yui M, et al. Diagnostic performance of different imaging modalities in the assessment of distant metastasis and local recurrence of tumor in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2017;46:1707–17.PubMedCrossRef
75.
Huellner MW, de Galiza BF, Husmann L, Pietsch CM, Mader CE, Burger IA, et al. TNM staging of non-small cell lung cancer: comparison of PET/MR and PET/CT. J Nucl Med. 2016;57:21–6.PubMedCrossRef
76.
Cronin CG, Swords R, Truong MT, Viswanathan C, Rohren E, Giles FJ, et al. Clinical utility of PET/CT in lymphoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;194:W91–103.PubMedCrossRef
77.
78.
Afaq A, Fraioli F, Sidhu H, Wan S, Punwani S, Chen S-H, et al. Comparison of PET/MRI with PET/CT in the evaluation of disease status in lymphoma. Clin Nucl Med. 2017;42:e1–7.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
79.
National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology- Hodgkin lymphoma 2020. Available from: https://​www.​nccn.​org/​professionals/​physician_​gls/​pdf/​hodgkins.​pdf.​ Accessed Mar 28, 2020.
80.
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.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
81.
Lewis J, McCarten K, Kurch L, Flerlage JE, Kaste SC, Kluge R, et al. Definition of cortical bone involvement in the staging of newly diagnosed pediatric Hodgkin lymphoma: a report from the International Working Group on Staging Evaluation and Response Criteria Harmonization (SEARCH). Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2020;67:e28142.PubMedCrossRef
82.
Theruvath AJ, Siedek F, Muehe AM, Garcia-Diaz J, Kirchner J, Martin O, et al. Therapy response assessment of pediatric tumors with whole-body diffusion-weighted MRI and FDG PET/MRI. Radiology. 2020;296:143–51.PubMedCrossRef
83.
Hawkins RA, Choi Y, Huang SC, Hoh CK, Dahlbom M, Schiepers C, et al. Evaluation of the skeletal kinetics of fluorine-18-fluoride ion with PET. J Nucl Med. 1992;33:633–42.PubMed
84.
85.
Rohren EM, Macapinlac HA. Spectrum of benign bone conditions on NaF-PET. Semin Nucl Med. 2017;47:392–6.PubMedCrossRef
86.
Beheshti M. 18F-sodium fluoride PET/CT and PET/MR imaging of bone and joint disorders. PET Clin. 2018;13:477–90.PubMedCrossRef
87.
Doré-Savard L, Barrière DA, Midavaine É, Bélanger D, Beaudet N, Tremblay L, et al. Mammary cancer bone metastasis follow-up using multimodal small-animal MR and PET imaging. J Nucl Med. 2013;54:944–52.PubMedCrossRef
88.
Wallitt KL, Khan SR, Dubash S, Tam HH, Khan S, Barwick TD. Clinical PET imaging in prostate cancer. Radiographics. 2017;37:1512–36.PubMedCrossRef
89.
Schuster DM, Nanni C, Fanti S, Oka S, Okudaira H, Inoue Y, et al. Anti-1-amino-3-18F-fluorocyclobutane-1-carboxylic acid: physiologic uptake patterns, incidental findings, and variants that may simulate disease. J Nucl Med. 2014;55:1986–92.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
90.
Oka S, Hattori R, Kurosaki F, Toyama M, Williams LA, Yu W, et al. A preliminary study of anti-1-amino-3-18F-fluorocyclobutyl-1-carboxylic acid for the detection of prostate cancer. J Nucl Med. 2007;48:46–55.PubMed
91.
Shoup TM, Olson J, Hoffman JM, Votaw J, Eshima D, Eshima L, et al. Synthesis and evaluation of [18F]1-amino-3-fluorocyclobutane-1-carboxylic acid to image brain tumors. J Nucl Med. 1999;40:331–8.PubMed
92.
Selnæs KM, Krüger-Stokke B, Elschot M, Willoch F, Størkersen Ø, Sandsmark E, et al. 18F-Fluciclovine PET/MRI for preoperative lymph node staging in high-risk prostate cancer patients. Eur Radiol. 2018;28:3151–9.PubMedCrossRef
93.
Chau A, Gardiner P, Colletti PM, Jadvar H. Diagnostic performance of 18F-Fluciclovine in detection of prostate cancer bone metastases. Clin Nucl Med. 2018;43:e226–31.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
94.
Amorim BJ, Prabhu V, Marco SS, Gervais D, Palmer WE, Heidari P, et al. Performance of 18F-fluciclovine PET/MR in the evaluation of osseous metastases from castration-resistant prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2020;47:105–14.PubMedCrossRef
95.
Lütje S, Blex S, Gomez B, Schaarschmidt BM, Umutlu L, Forsting M, et al. Optimization of acquisition time of 68Ga-PSMA-ligand PET/MRI in patients with local and metastatic prostate cancer. PLoS One. 2016;11:e0164392.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
96.
Afshar-Oromieh A, Sattler LP, Mier W, Hadaschik BA, Debus J, Holland-Letz T, et al. The clinical impact of additional late PET/CT imaging with 68Ga-PSMA-11 (HBED-CC) in the diagnosis of prostate cancer. J Nucl Med. 2017;58:750–5.PubMedCrossRef
97.
Derlin T, Weiberg D, von Klot C, Wester H-J, Henkenberens C, Ross TL, et al. 68Ga-PSMA I&T PET/CT for assessment of prostate cancer: evaluation of image quality after forced diuresis and delayed imaging. Eur Radiol. 2016;26:4345–53.PubMedCrossRef
98.
Domachevsky L, Bernstine H, Goldberg N, Nidam M, Stern D, Sosna J, et al. Early 68GA-PSMA PET/MRI acquisition: assessment of lesion detectability and PET metrics in patients with prostate cancer undergoing same-day late PET/CT. Clin Radiol. 2017;72:944–50.PubMedCrossRef
99.
Uprimny C, Kroiss AS, Decristoforo C, Fritz J, Warwitz B, Scarpa L, et al. Early dynamic imaging in 68Ga- PSMA-11 PET/CT allows discrimination of urinary bladder activity and prostate cancer lesions. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017;44:765–75.PubMedCrossRef
100.
Giesel FL, Knorr K, Spohn F, Will L, Maurer T, Flechsig P, et al. Detection efficacy of 18F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT in 251 patients with biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy. J Nucl Med. 2019;60:362–8.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
101.
Zacho HD, Nielsen JB, Haberkorn U, Stenholt L, Petersen LJ. 68 Ga-PSMA PET/CT for the detection of bone metastases in prostate cancer: a systematic review of the published literature. Clin Physiol Funct Imaging. 2017.
102.
Kranzbühler B, Nagel H, Becker AS, Müller J, Huellner M, Stolzmann P, et al. Clinical performance of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/MRI for the detection of recurrent prostate cancer following radical prostatectomy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018;45:20–30.PubMedCrossRef
103.
Freitag MT, Radtke JP, Hadaschik BA, Kopp-Schneider A, Eder M, Kopka K, et al. Comparison of hybrid (68)Ga-PSMA PET/MRI and (68)Ga-PSMA PET/CT in the evaluation of lymph node and bone metastases of prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016;43:70–83.PubMedCrossRef
104.
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 68Ga-labelled PSMA ligand for the diagnosis of recurrent prostate cancer: initial experience. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;41:887–97.PubMedCrossRef
105.
De Coster L, Sciot R, Everaerts W, Gheysens O, Verscuren R, Deroose CM, et al. Fibrous dysplasia mimicking bone metastasis on 68GA-PSMA PET/MRI. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017;44:1607–8.PubMedCrossRef
106.
Domachevsky L, Bernstine H, Goldberg N, Nidam M, Catalano OA, Groshar D. Comparison between pelvic PSMA-PET/MR and whole-body PSMA-PET/CT for the initial evaluation of prostate cancer: a proof of concept study. Eur Radiol. 2020;30:328–36.PubMedCrossRef
107.
Domachevsky L, Goldberg N, Bernstine H, Nidam M, Groshar D. Quantitative characterisation of clinically significant intra-prostatic cancer by prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) expression and cell density on PSMA-11. Eur Radiol. 2018;28:5275–83.PubMedCrossRef
108.
Hofman MS, Lau WFE, Hicks RJ. Somatostatin receptor imaging with 68Ga DOTATATE PET/CT: clinical utility, normal patterns, pearls, and pitfalls in interpretation. Radiographics. 2015;35:500–16.PubMedCrossRef
109.
Subramaniam RM, Bradshaw ML, Lewis K, Pinho D, Shah C, Walker RC. ACR practice parameter for the performance of Gallium-68 DOTATATE PET/CT for neuroendocrine tumors. Clin Nucl Med. 2018;43:899–908.PubMedCrossRef
110.
Geijer H, Breimer LH. Somatostatin receptor PET/CT in neuroendocrine tumours: update on systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;40:1770–80.PubMedCrossRef
111.
Panagiotidis E, Alshammari A, Michopoulou S, Skoura E, Naik K, Maragkoudakis E, et al. Comparison of the impact of 68Ga-DOTATATE and [18F]-FDG PET/CT on clinical management in patients with neuroendocrine tumors. J Nucl Med. 2017;58:91–6.PubMedCrossRef
112.
Binderup T, Knigge U, Loft A, Federspiel B, Kjaer A. 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography predicts survival of patients with neuroendocrine tumors. Clin Cancer Res. 2010;16:978–85.PubMedCrossRef
113.
Naji M, Zhao C, Welsh SJ, Meades R, Win Z, Ferrarese A, et al. 68Ga-DOTA-TATE PET vs. 123I-MIBG in identifying malignant neural crest tumours. Mol Imaging Biol. 2011;13:769–75.PubMedCrossRef
114.
Sharma P, Dhull VS, Arora S, Gupta P, Kumar R, Durgapal P, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of (68)Ga-DOTANOC PET/CT imaging in pheochromocytoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;41:494–504.PubMedCrossRef
115.
Forrer F, Riedweg I, Maecke HR, Mueller-Brand J. Radiolabeled DOTATOC in patients with advanced paraganglioma and pheochromocytoma. Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2008;52:334–40.PubMed
116.
Afshar-Oromieh A, Giesel FL, Linhart HG, Haberkorn U, Haufe S, Combs SE, et al. Detection of cranial meningiomas: comparison of 68Ga-DOTATOC PET/CT and contrast-enhanced MRI. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012;39:1409–15.PubMedCrossRef
117.
Stade F, Dittmar J-O, Jäkel O, Kratochwil C, Haberkorn U, Debus J, et al. Influence of 68Ga-DOTATOC on sparing of normal tissue for radiation therapy of skull base meningioma: differential impact of photon and proton radiotherapy. Radiat Oncol. 2018;13:58.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
118.
Gains JE, Bomanji JB, Fersht NL, Sullivan T, D’Souza D, Sullivan KP, et al. 177Lu-DOTATATE molecular radiotherapy for childhood neuroblastoma. J Nucl Med. 2011;52:1041–7.PubMedCrossRef
119.
Mackie EJ, Trechsel U, Bruns C. Somatostatin receptors are restricted to a subpopulation of osteoblast-like cells during endochondral bone formation. Development. 1990;110:1233–9.PubMedCrossRef
120.
Brogsitter C, Hofmockel T, Kotzerke J. (68)Ga DOTATATE uptake in vertebral hemangioma. Clin Nucl Med. 2014;39:462–3.PubMedCrossRef
121.
Klinaki I, Al-Nahhas A, Soneji N, Win Z. 68Ga DOTATATE PET/CT uptake in spinal lesions and MRI correlation on a patient with neuroendocrine tumor: potential pitfalls. Clin Nucl Med. 2013;38:e449–53.PubMedCrossRef
122.
Jacene HA, Ishimori T, Engles JM, Leboulleux S, Stearns V, Wahl RL. Effects of pegfilgrastim on normal biodistribution of [18F]-FDG: preclinical and clinical studies. J Nucl Med. 2006;47:950–6.PubMed
123.
124.
Catalano OA, Daye D, Signore A, Iannace C, Vangel M, Luongo A, et al. Staging performance of whole-body DWI, PET/CT and PET/MRI in invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast. Int J Oncol. 2017;51:281–8.PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
An international expert opinion statement on the utility of PET/MR for imaging of skeletal metastases
Authors
Jad S. Husseini
Bárbara Juarez Amorim
Angel Torrado-Carvajal
Vinay Prabhu
David Groshar
Lale Umutlu
Ken Herrmann
Lina García Cañamaque
José Ramón García Garzón
William E. Palmer
Pedram Heidari
Tiffany Ting-Fang Shih
Jacob Sosna
Cristina Matushita
Juliano Cerci
Marcelo Queiroz
Valdair Francisco Muglia
Marcello H. Nogueira-Barbosa
Ronald J. H. Borra
Thomas C. Kwee
Andor W. J. M. Glaudemans
Laura Evangelista
Marco Salvatore
Alberto Cuocolo
Andrea Soricelli
Christian Herold
Andrea Laghi
Marius Mayerhoefer
Umar Mahmood
Ciprian Catana
Heike E. Daldrup-Link
Bruce Rosen
Onofrio A. Catalano
Publication date
01-05-2021
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging / Issue 5/2021
Print ISSN: 1619-7070
Electronic ISSN: 1619-7089
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-021-05198-2

Other articles of this Issue 5/2021

European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 5/2021 Go to the issue

Correction

Correction to: High dose brachytherapy with non sealed 188Re (rhenium) resin in patients with non-melanoma skin cancers (NMSCs): single center preliminary results

Original Article

Liver tumor F-18 FDG-PET before and immediately after microwave ablation enables imaging and quantification of tumor tissue contraction

Book Review

Haris Chrysikopoulos: Errors in Imaging

Image of the Month

Elevated [68Ga]Ga-DOTA-FAPI-04 activity in degenerative osteophyte in a patient with lung cancer

Original Article

Therapy-related myeloid neoplasm after peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT) in 1631 patients from our 20 years of experiences: prognostic parameters and overall survival

Editorial

Is Patlak y-intercept a relevant metrics?