Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 3/2016

01-09-2016 | Original Article

Conspicuity of FDG-Avid Osseous Lesions on PET/MRI Versus PET/CT: a Quantitative and Visual Analysis

Authors: Tyler J. Fraum, Kathryn J. Fowler, Jonathan McConathy

Published in: Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging | Issue 3/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Because standard MRI-based attenuation correction (AC) does not account for the attenuation of photons by cortical bone, PET/MRI may have reduced sensitivity for FDG-avid focal bone lesions (FFBLs). This study evaluates whether MRI-based AC compromises detection of FFBLs, by comparing their conspicuity both quantitatively and qualitatively on PET/MRI versus PET/CT.

Methods

One hundred ninety general oncology patients underwent whole-body PET/CT followed by whole-body PET/MRI, utilizing the same FDG dose. Thirteen patients with a total of 50 FFBLs were identified. Using automated contouring software, a volumetric contour was generated for each FFBL. Adjacent regions of normal background bone (BB) were selected manually. For each contour, SUV-max and SUV-mean were determined. Lesion-to-background SUV ratios served as quantitative metrics of conspicuity. Additionally, two blinded readers evaluated the relative conspicuity of FFBLs on PET images derived from MRI-based AC versus CT-based AC. Visibility of an anatomic correlate for FFBLs on the corresponding CT and MR images was also assessed.

Results

SUV-mean was lower on PET/MRI for both FFBLs (-6.5 %, p = 0.009) and BB (-20.5 %, p < 0.001). SUV-max was lower on PET/MRI for BB (-14.2 %, p = 0.002) but not for FFBLs (-6.2 %, p = 0.068). The ratio of FFBL SUV-mean to BB SUV-mean was higher for PET/MRI (+29.5 %, p < 0.001). Forty of 50 lesions (80 %) were visually deemed to be of equal or greater conspicuity on PET images derived from PET/MRI. Thirty-five of 50 FFBLs (70 %) had CT correlates, while 40/50 FFBLs (80 %) had a correlate on at least one MRI sequence. The mean interval from tracer administration to imaging was longer (p < 0.001) for PET/MRI (127 v. 62 min).

Conclusions

Both FFBLs and BB had lower mean SUVs on PET/MRI than PET/CT. This finding was likely in part due to differences in the handling of cortical bone by MRI-based AC versus CT-based AC. Despite this systematic bias, FFBLs had greater conspicuity on PET/MRI, both qualitatively and quantitatively. This difference was likely due to the longer tracer uptake times for PET/MRI, which allowed for more tracer accumulation by FFBLs and more tracer washout from BB. Our results suggest that whole-body PET/MRI and PET/CT provide comparable sensitivity for detection of FDG-avid focal bone lesions.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Kanda T, Kitajima K, Suenaga Y, Konishi J, Sasaki R, Morimoto K, et al. Value of retrospective image fusion of 18F-FDG PET and MRI for preoperative staging of head and neck cancer: comparison with PET/CT and contrast-enhanced neck MRI. Eur J Radiol. 2013;82:2005–10.CrossRefPubMed Kanda T, Kitajima K, Suenaga Y, Konishi J, Sasaki R, Morimoto K, et al. Value of retrospective image fusion of 18F-FDG PET and MRI for preoperative staging of head and neck cancer: comparison with PET/CT and contrast-enhanced neck MRI. Eur J Radiol. 2013;82:2005–10.CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Plathow C, Aschoff P, Lichy MP, Eschmann S, Hehr T, Brink I, et al. Positron emission tomography/computed tomography and whole-body magnetic resonance imaging in staging of advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer--initial results. Investig Radiol. 2008;43:290–7.CrossRef Plathow C, Aschoff P, Lichy MP, Eschmann S, Hehr T, Brink I, et al. Positron emission tomography/computed tomography and whole-body magnetic resonance imaging in staging of advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer--initial results. Investig Radiol. 2008;43:290–7.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Kitajima K, Suenaga Y, Ueno Y, Kanda T, Maeda T, Deguchi M, et al. Fusion of PET and MRI for staging of uterine cervical cancer: comparison with contrast-enhanced (18)F-FDG PET/CT and pelvic MRI. Clin Imaging. 2014;38:464–9.CrossRefPubMed Kitajima K, Suenaga Y, Ueno Y, Kanda T, Maeda T, Deguchi M, et al. Fusion of PET and MRI for staging of uterine cervical cancer: comparison with contrast-enhanced (18)F-FDG PET/CT and pelvic MRI. Clin Imaging. 2014;38:464–9.CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Kitajima K, Suenaga Y, Ueno Y, Kanda T, Maeda T, Takahashi S, et al. Value of fusion of PET and MRI for staging of endometrial cancer: comparison with 18F-FDG contrast-enhanced PET/CT and dynamic contrast-enhanced pelvic MRI. Eur J Radiol. 2013;82:1672–6.CrossRefPubMed Kitajima K, Suenaga Y, Ueno Y, Kanda T, Maeda T, Takahashi S, et al. Value of fusion of PET and MRI for staging of endometrial cancer: comparison with 18F-FDG contrast-enhanced PET/CT and dynamic contrast-enhanced pelvic MRI. Eur J Radiol. 2013;82:1672–6.CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Mundy GR. Metastasis to bone: causes, consequences and therapeutic opportunities. Nat Rev Cancer. 2002;2:584–93.CrossRefPubMed Mundy GR. Metastasis to bone: causes, consequences and therapeutic opportunities. Nat Rev Cancer. 2002;2:584–93.CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Schmidt GP, Schoenberg SO, Schmid R, Stahl R, Tiling R, Becker CR, et al. Screening for bone metastases: whole-body MRI using a 32-channel system versus dual-modality PET-CT. Eur Radiol. 2007;17:939–49.CrossRefPubMed Schmidt GP, Schoenberg SO, Schmid R, Stahl R, Tiling R, Becker CR, et al. Screening for bone metastases: whole-body MRI using a 32-channel system versus dual-modality PET-CT. Eur Radiol. 2007;17:939–49.CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Hofmann M, Bezrukov I, Mantlik F, Aschoff P, Steinke F, Beyer T, et al. MRI-based attenuation correction for whole-body PET/MRI: quantitative evaluation of segmentation- and atlas-based methods. J Nucl Med. 2011;52:1392–9. Hofmann M, Bezrukov I, Mantlik F, Aschoff P, Steinke F, Beyer T, et al. MRI-based attenuation correction for whole-body PET/MRI: quantitative evaluation of segmentation- and atlas-based methods. J Nucl Med. 2011;52:1392–9.
9.
go back to reference 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.CrossRefPubMed 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.CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference 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 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
11.
go back to reference 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 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
12.
go back to reference Chmura Kraemer H, Periyakoil VS, Noda A. Kappa coefficients in medical research. Stat Med. 2002;21:2109–29.CrossRefPubMed Chmura Kraemer H, Periyakoil VS, Noda A. Kappa coefficients in medical research. Stat Med. 2002;21:2109–29.CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Heusch P, Buchbender C, Beiderwellen K, Nensa F, Hartung-Knemeyer V, Lauenstein TC, et al. Standardized uptake values for [18F] FDG in normal organ tissues: comparison of whole-body PET/CT and PET/MRI. Eur J Radiol. 2013;82:870–6.CrossRefPubMed Heusch P, Buchbender C, Beiderwellen K, Nensa F, Hartung-Knemeyer V, Lauenstein TC, et al. Standardized uptake values for [18F] FDG in normal organ tissues: comparison of whole-body PET/CT and PET/MRI. Eur J Radiol. 2013;82:870–6.CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference 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 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
15.
go back to reference Aznar MC, Sersar R, Saabye J, Ladefoged CN, Andersen FL, Rasmussen JH, et al. Whole-body PET/MRI: the effect of bone attenuation during MR-based attenuation correction in oncology imaging. Eur J Radiol. 2014;83:1177–83.CrossRefPubMed Aznar MC, Sersar R, Saabye J, Ladefoged CN, Andersen FL, Rasmussen JH, et al. Whole-body PET/MRI: the effect of bone attenuation during MR-based attenuation correction in oncology imaging. Eur J Radiol. 2014;83:1177–83.CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference 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.CrossRefPubMed 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.CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference 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. 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.
18.
go back to reference Roy S, Wang W-T, Carass A, Prince JL, Butman JA, Pham DL. PET attenuation correction using synthetic CT from ultrashort echo-time MR imaging. J Nucl Med. 2014;55:2071–7. Roy S, Wang W-T, Carass A, Prince JL, Butman JA, Pham DL. PET attenuation correction using synthetic CT from ultrashort echo-time MR imaging. J Nucl Med. 2014;55:2071–7.
19.
go back to reference Marshall HR, Patrick J, Laidley D, Prato FS, Butler J, Théberge J, et al. Description and assessment of a registration-based approach to include bones for attenuation correction of whole-body PET/MRI. Med Phys. 2013;40:082509.CrossRefPubMed Marshall HR, Patrick J, Laidley D, Prato FS, Butler J, Théberge J, et al. Description and assessment of a registration-based approach to include bones for attenuation correction of whole-body PET/MRI. Med Phys. 2013;40:082509.CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Kumar R, Loving VA, Chauhan A, Zhuang H, Mitchell S, Alavi A. Potential of dual-time-point imaging to improve breast cancer diagnosis with (18)F-FDG PET. J Nucl Med. 2005;46:1819–24.PubMed Kumar R, Loving VA, Chauhan A, Zhuang H, Mitchell S, Alavi A. Potential of dual-time-point imaging to improve breast cancer diagnosis with (18)F-FDG PET. J Nucl Med. 2005;46:1819–24.PubMed
21.
go back to reference Schillaci O. Use of dual-point fluorodeoxyglucose imaging to enhance sensitivity and specificity. Semin Nucl Med. 2012;42:267–80.CrossRefPubMed Schillaci O. Use of dual-point fluorodeoxyglucose imaging to enhance sensitivity and specificity. Semin Nucl Med. 2012;42:267–80.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Conspicuity of FDG-Avid Osseous Lesions on PET/MRI Versus PET/CT: a Quantitative and Visual Analysis
Authors
Tyler J. Fraum
Kathryn J. Fowler
Jonathan McConathy
Publication date
01-09-2016
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging / Issue 3/2016
Print ISSN: 1869-3474
Electronic ISSN: 1869-3482
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13139-016-0403-3

Other articles of this Issue 3/2016

Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 3/2016 Go to the issue