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 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Annals of Nuclear Medicine
Published in: Annals of Nuclear Medicine 5/2017

01-06-2017 | Original Article

Comparison of 18F-FDG-PET/CT and 18F-FDG-PET/MR imaging in oncology: a systematic review

Authors: Amit Singnurkar, Raymond Poon, Ur Metser

Published in: Annals of Nuclear Medicine | Issue 5/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Objective

The aim of this study was to systematically review the literature to evaluate the clinical performance of integrated 18F-FDG PET/MR as compared with 18F-FDG PET/CT in oncologic imaging.

Methods

The literature was searched using MEDLINE and EMBASE via OVID. Studies comparing the diagnostic accuracy of integrated 18F-FDG PET/MR and 18F-FDG PET/CT in the diagnosis, staging/restaging, assessment of treatment response, or evaluation of metastasis in patients with suspected or diagnosed cancers were deemed eligible for inclusion. Risk of bias and applicability concerns were assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool.

Results

Twenty studies met the inclusion criteria. The overall quality of the studies was rated favorably with bias or applicability concerns in a few studies. Our review suggests that 18F-FDG PET/MR performs comparably to 18F-FDG PET/CT in the detection of local lymph node and distant metastases and superiorly in determining the local extent of tumor. SUV obtained from 18F-FDG PET/MR correlated highly with those obtained from 18F-FDG PET/CT.

Conclusions

Based on early evidence, 18F-FDG PET/MR is comparable to 18F-FDG PET/CT in the clinical scenarios examined in this review. The potential for interchangeability of 18F-FDG PET/MR with 18F-FDG PET/CT will vary by indication and the body site that is being imaged, with PET scanners integrated with MRI predicted to provide greater detail in the evaluation of local tumor extent, where 18F-FDG PET/CT can be limited.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Bar-Shalom R, Yefremov N, Guralnik L, Gaitini D, Frenkel A, Kuten A, et al. Clinical performance of PET/CT in evaluation of cancer: additional value for diagnostic imaging and patient management. J Nucl Med. 2003;44:1200–9.PubMed
2.
Beyer T, Townsend DW, Brun T, Kinahan PE, Charron M, Roddy R, et al. A combined PET/CT scanner for clinical oncology. J Nucl Med. 2000;41:1369–79.PubMed
3.
Huang B, Law MW, Khong PL. Whole-body PET/CT scanning: estimation of radiation dose and cancer risk. Radiology. 2009;251:166–74.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Czernin J, Ta L, Herrmann K. Does PET/MR imaging improve cancer assessments? Literature evidence from more than 900 patients. J Nucl Med. 2014;55:59S–62S.
5.
Wagenknecht G, Kaiser HJ, Mottaghy FM, Herzog H. MRI for attenuation correction in PET: methods and challenges. MAGMA. 2013;26:99–113.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Grueneisen J, Nagarajah J, Buchbender C, Hoffmann O, Schaarschmidt BM, Poeppel T, 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;50:505–13.CrossRefPubMed
7.
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
8.
Heusch P, Nensa F, Schaarschmidt B, Sivanesapillai R, Beiderwellen K, Gomez 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;42:42–8.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Beiderwellen K, Gomez B, Buchbender C, Hartung V, Poeppel TD, Nensa F, et al. Depiction and characterization of liver lesions in whole body (18F)-FDG PET/MRI. Eur J Radiol. 2013;82:e669–e675.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Beiderwellen K, Huebner M, Heusch P, Grueneisen J, Ruhlmann V, Nensa F, 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;24:2023–30.CrossRefPubMed
11.
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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
12.
Beiderwellen K, Grueneisen J, Ruhlmann V, Buderath P, Aktas B, Heusch P, et al. ((18)F)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.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Kubiessa K, Purz S, Gawlitza M, Kuhn A, Fuchs J, Steinhoff KG, et al. Initial clinical results of simultaneous 18F-FDG PET/MRI in comparison to 18F-FDG PET/CT in patients with head and neck cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;41:639–48.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Heusch P, Buchbender C, Kohler J, Nensa F, Gauler T, Gomez B, et al. Thoracic staging in lung cancer: prospective comparison of 18F-FDG PET/MR imaging and 18F-FDG PET/CT. J Nucl Med. 2014;55:373–8.CrossRefPubMed
15.
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.CrossRefPubMed
16.
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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
17.
Beiderwellen K, Geraldo L, Ruhlmann V, Heusch P, Gomez B, Nensa F, et al. Accuracy of [18F]FDG PET/MRI for the detection of liver metastases. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0137285.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
18.
Brendle C, Schwenzer NF, Rempp H, Schmidt H, Pfannenberg C, la Fougere C, 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;43:123–32.CrossRefPubMed
19.
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. Invest Radiol. 2016;51:163–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
20.
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.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Sawicki LM, Grueneisen J, Schaarschmidt BM, Buchbender C, Nagarajah J, Umutlu L, et al. Evaluation of 18F-FDG PET/MRI, 18F-FDG PET/CT, MRI, and CT in whole-body staging of recurrent breast cancer. Eur J Radiol. 2016;85:459–65.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Schaarschmidt BM, Heusch P, Buchbender C, Ruhlmann M, Bergmann C, Ruhlmann V, 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.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Lee G, Hoseok I, Kim SJ, Jeong YJ, Kim IJ, Pak K, 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;55:1242–7.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Vrachimis A, Burg MC, Wenning C, Allkemper T, Weckesser M, Schafers M, et al. [(18)F]FDG PET/CT outperforms [(18)F]FDG PET/MRI in differentiated thyroid cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016;43:212–20.CrossRefPubMed
25.
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;40:1415–25.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Comparison of 18F-FDG-PET/CT and 18F-FDG-PET/MR imaging in oncology: a systematic review
Authors
Amit Singnurkar
Raymond Poon
Ur Metser
Publication date
01-06-2017
Publisher
Springer Japan
Published in
Annals of Nuclear Medicine / Issue 5/2017
Print ISSN: 0914-7187
Electronic ISSN: 1864-6433
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12149-017-1164-5

Other articles of this Issue 5/2017

Annals of Nuclear Medicine 5/2017 Go to the issue

Original Article

Long-term results and tolerability of tandem peptide receptor radionuclide therapy with 90Y/177Lu-DOTATATE in neuroendocrine tumors with respect to the primary location: a 10-year study

Original Article

Age-related effects and gender differences in Japanese healthy controls for [123I] FP-CIT SPECT

Original Article

Incidental spade-shaped FDG uptake in the left ventricular apex suggests apical hypertrophic cardiomyopathy

Original Article

Glucose uptake of the muscle and adipose tissues in diabetes and obesity disease models: evaluation of insulin and β3-adrenergic receptor agonist effects by 18F-FDG

Original Article

Compared to 123I-MIBG SPECT/CT, 18F-DOPA PET/CT provides accurate tumor extent in patients with extra-adrenal paraganglioma

Original Article

Survival and prognostic factors after adjuvant 131iodine-labeled lipiodol for hepatocellular carcinoma: a retrospective analysis of 106 patients over 20 years