Top

European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging

Published in:

01-02-2019 | Original Article

Prospective comparison of ¹⁸F-FDG PET/MRI and ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT for thoracic staging of non-small cell lung cancer

Authors: Julian Kirchner, Lino M. Sawicki, Felix Nensa, Benedikt M. Schaarschmidt, Henning Reis, Marc Ingenwerth, Simon Bogner, Clemens Aigner, Christian Buchbender, Lale Umutlu, Gerald Antoch, Ken Herrmann, Philipp Heusch

Published in: European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging | Issue 2/2019

Abstract

Objectives

To compare the diagnostic performance of ¹⁸F-FDG PET/MRI and ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT for primary and locoregional lymph node staging in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Methods

In this prospective study, a total of 84 patients (51 men, 33 women, mean age 62.5 ± 9.1 years) with histopathologically confirmed NSCLC underwent ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT followed by ¹⁸F-FDG PET/MRI in a single injection protocol. Two readers independently assessed T and N staging in separate sessions according to the seventh edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer staging manual for ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT and ¹⁸F-FDG PET/MRI, respectively. Histopathology as a reference standard was available for N staging in all 84 patients and for T staging in 39 patients. Differences in staging accuracy were assessed by McNemars chi² test. The maximum standardized uptake value (SUV_max) and longitudinal diameters of primary tumors were correlated using Pearson’s coefficients.

Results

T stage was categorized concordantly in ¹⁸F-FDG PET/MRI and ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT in 38 of 39 (97.4%) patients. Herein, ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT and ¹⁸F-FDG PET/MRI correctly determined the T stage in 92.3 and 89.7% of patients, respectively. N stage was categorized concordantly in 83 of 84 patients (98.8%). ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT correctly determined the N stage in 78 of 84 patients (92.9%), while ¹⁸F-FDG PET/MRI correctly determined the N stage in 77 of 84 patients (91.7%). Differences between ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT and ¹⁸F-FDG PET/MRI in T and N staging accuracy were not statistically significant (p > 0.5, each). Tumor size and SUV_max measurements derived from both imaging modalities exhibited excellent correlation (r = 0.963 and r = 0.901, respectively).

Conclusion

¹⁸F-FDG PET/MRI and ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT show an equivalently high diagnostic performance for T and N staging in patients suffering from NSCLC.

Govindan R, Page N, Morgensztern D, Read W, Tierney R, Vlahiotis A, et al. Changing epidemiology of small-cell lung cancer in the United States over the last 30 years: analysis of the surveillance, epidemiologic, and end results database. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:4539–44. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2005.04.4859.CrossRefPubMed

Torre LA, Bray F, Siegel RL, Ferlay J, Lortet-Tieulent J, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin. 2015;65:87–108. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21262.CrossRef

Postmus PE, Kerr KM, Oudkerk M, Senan S, Waller DA, Vansteenkiste J, et al. Early and locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC): ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2017;28:iv1–iv21. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdx222.CrossRefPubMed

De Leyn P, Dooms C, Kuzdzal J, Lardinois D, Passlick B, Rami-Porta R, et al. Revised ESTS guidelines for preoperative mediastinal lymph node staging for non-small-cell lung cancer. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2014;45:787–98. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejcts/ezu028.CrossRefPubMed

Lardinois D, Weder W, Hany TF, Kamel EM, Korom S, Seifert B, et al. Staging of non-small-cell lung cancer with integrated positron-emission tomography and computed tomography. N Engl J Med. 2003;348:2500–7. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa022136.CrossRefPubMed

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. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2292021598.CrossRefPubMed

Wang J, Welch K, Wang L, Kong FM. Negative predictive value of positron emission tomography and computed tomography for stage T1-2N0 non-small-cell lung cancer: a meta-analysis. Clin Lung Cancer. 2012;13:81–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cllc.2011.08.002.CrossRefPubMed

Ambrosini V, Fanti S, Chengazi VU, Rubello D. Diagnostic accuracy of FDG PET/CT in mediastinal lymph nodes from lung cancer. Eur J Radiol. 2014;83:1301–2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2014.04.035.CrossRefPubMed

Sommer G, Wiese M, Winter L, Lenz C, Klarhofer M, Forrer F, et al. Preoperative staging of non-small-cell lung cancer: comparison of whole-body diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging and 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography/computed tomography. Eur Radiol. 2012;22:2859–67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-012-2542-y.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Roberts PF, Follette DM, von Haag D, Park JA, Valk PE, Pounds TR, et al. Factors associated with false-positive staging of lung cancer by positron emission tomography. Ann Thorac Surg. 2000;70:1154–9. discussion 9-60CrossRef

11.

Konishi J, Yamazaki K, Tsukamoto E, Tamaki N, Onodera Y, Otake T, et al. Mediastinal lymph node staging by FDG-PET in patients with non-small cell lung cancer: analysis of false-positive FDG-PET findings. Respiration. 2003;70:500–6.CrossRef

12.

Zhang R, Ying K, Shi L, Zhang L, Zhou L. Combined endobronchial and endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration for mediastinal lymph node staging of lung cancer: a meta-analysis. Eur J Cancer. 2013;49:1860–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2013.02.008.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Tournoy KG, Maddens S, Gosselin R, Van Maele G, van Meerbeeck JP, Kelles A. Integrated FDG-PET/CT does not make invasive staging of the intrathoracic lymph nodes in non-small cell lung cancer redundant: a prospective study. Thorax. 2007;62:696–701. https://doi.org/10.1136/thx.2006.072959.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

14.

Vial MR, O'Connell OJ, Grosu HB, Hernandez M, Noor L, Casal RF, et al. Diagnostic performance of endobronchial ultrasound-guided mediastinal lymph node sampling in early stage non-small cell lung cancer: a prospective study. Respirology. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1111/resp.13162.

15.

Nomori H, Watanabe K, Ohtsuka T, Naruke T, Suemasu K, Uno K. Evaluation of F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET scanning for pulmonary nodules less than 3 cm in diameter, with special reference to the CT images. Lung Cancer. 2004;45:19–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lungcan.2004.01.009.CrossRefPubMed

16.

Cheran SK, Nielsen ND, Patz EF Jr. False-negative findings for primary lung tumors on FDG positron emission tomography: staging and prognostic implications. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2004;182:1129–32. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.182.5.1821129.CrossRefPubMed

17.

Ehman EC, Johnson GB, Villanueva-Meyer JE, Cha S, Leynes AP, Larson PEZ, et al. PET/MRI: where might it replace PET/CT? J Magn Reson Imaging. 2017;46:1247–62. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.25711.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

18.

Spick C, Herrmann K, Czernin J. 18F-FDG PET/CT and PET/MRI perform equally well in cancer: evidence from studies on more than 2,300 patients. J Nucl Med. 2016;57:420–30. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.115.158808.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

19.

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. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.113.129825.CrossRefPubMed

20.

Kim HS, Lee KS, Ohno Y, van Beek EJ, Biederer J. PET/CT versus MRI for diagnosis, staging, and follow-up of lung cancer. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2015;42:247–60. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.24776.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Biederer J, Beer M, Hirsch W, Wild J, Fabel M, Puderbach M, et al. MRI of the lung (2/3). Why ... when ... how? Insights Imaging. 2012;3:355–71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13244-011-0146-8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

22.

Edge SB, Compton CC. The American Joint Committee on Cancer: the 7th edition of the AJCC cancer staging manual and the future of TNM. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17:1471–4. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-010-0985-4.CrossRefPubMed

23.

Shim SS, Lee KS, Kim BT, Chung MJ, Lee EJ, Han J, et al. Non-small cell lung cancer: prospective comparison of integrated FDG PET/CT and CT alone for preoperative staging. Radiology. 2005;236:1011–9. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2363041310.CrossRefPubMed

24.

Kim HY, Yi CA, Lee KS, Chung MJ, Kim YK, Choi BK, et al. Nodal metastasis in non-small cell lung cancer: accuracy of 3.0-T MR imaging. Radiology. 2008;246:596–604. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2461061907.CrossRefPubMed

25.

Ziyade S, Pinarbasili NB, Ziyade N, Akdemir OC, Sahin F, Soysal O, et al. Determination of standard number, size and weight of mediastinal lymph nodes in postmortem examinations: reflection on lung cancer surgery. J Cardiothorac Surg. 2013;8:94. https://doi.org/10.1186/1749-8090-8-94.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

26.

Glazer GM, Gross BH, Quint LE, Francis IR, Bookstein FL, Orringer MB. Normal mediastinal lymph nodes: number and size according to American Thoracic Society mapping. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1985;144:261–5. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.144.2.261.CrossRefPubMed

27.

Buchbender C, Heusner TA, Lauenstein TC, Bockisch A, Antoch G. Oncologic PET/MRI, part 1: tumors of the brain, head and neck, chest, abdomen, and pelvis. J Nucl Med. 2012;53:928–38. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.112.105338.CrossRefPubMed

28.

Buchbender C, Heusner TA, Lauenstein TC, Bockisch A, Antoch G. Oncologic PET/MRI, part 2: bone tumors, soft-tissue tumors, melanoma, and lymphoma. J Nucl Med. 2012;53:1244–52. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.112.109306.CrossRefPubMed

29.

Novello S, Barlesi F, Califano R, Cufer T, Ekman S, Levra MG, et al. Metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer: ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2016;27:v1–v27. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdw326.CrossRefPubMed

30.

Sawicki LM, Grueneisen J, Buchbender C, Schaarschmidt BM, Gomez B, Ruhlmann V, et al. Evaluation of the outcome of lung nodules missed on 18F-FDG PET/MRI compared with 18F-FDG PET/CT in patients with known malignancies. J Nucl Med. 2016;57:15–20. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.115.162966.CrossRefPubMed

31.

Sawicki LM, Grueneisen J, Buchbender C, Schaarschmidt BM, Gomez B, Ruhlmann V, et al. Comparative performance of 18F-FDG PET/MRI and 18F-FDG PET/CT regarding detection and characterization of pulmonary lesions in 121 oncologic patients. J Nucl Med. 2016. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.115.167486.

32.

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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-014-2873-9.CrossRefPubMed

33.

Sawicki LM, Grueneisen J, Buchbender C, Schaarschmidt BM, Gomez B, Ruhlmann V, et al. Comparative performance of 18F-FDG PET/MRI and 18F-FDG PET/CT in detection and characterization of pulmonary lesions in 121 oncologic patients. J Nucl Med. 2016;57:582–6. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.115.167486.CrossRefPubMed

34.

Yi CA, Shin KM, Lee KS, Kim BT, Kim H, Kwon OJ, et al. Non-small cell lung cancer staging: efficacy comparison of integrated PET/CT versus 3.0-T whole-body MR imaging. Radiology. 2008;248:632–42. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2482071822.CrossRefPubMed

35.

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. https://doi.org/10.1097/RLI.0b013e318163273a.CrossRef

36.

Ohno Y, Koyama H, Yoshikawa T, Nishio M, Aoyama N, Onishi Y, et al. N stage disease in patients with non-small cell lung cancer: efficacy of quantitative and qualitative assessment with STIR turbo spin-echo imaging, diffusion-weighted MR imaging, and fluorodeoxyglucose PET/CT. Radiology. 2011;261:605–15. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.11110281.CrossRefPubMed

37.

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. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.115.162040.CrossRefPubMed

38.

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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-016-4397-0.CrossRefPubMed

39.

Kauczor HU, Kreitner KF. Contrast-enhanced MRI of the lung. Eur J Radiol. 2000;34:196–207.CrossRef

40.

Kershah S, Partovi S, Traughber BJ, Muzic RF Jr, Schluchter MD, O'Donnell JK, et al. Comparison of standardized uptake values in normal structures between PET/CT and PET/MRI in an oncology patient population. Mol Imaging Biol. 2013;15:776–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11307-013-0629-8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

41.

Heusch P, Buchbender C, Beiderwellen K, Nensa F, Hartung-Knemeyer V, Lauenstein TC, et al. Standardized uptake values for [(1)(8)F] FDG in normal organ tissues: comparison of whole-body PET/CT and PET/MRI. Eur J Radiol. 2013;82:870–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2013.01.008.CrossRefPubMed

42.

Law WP, Maggacis N, Jeavons SJ, Miles KA. Concordance of 18F-FDG PET uptake in tumor and normal tissues on PET/MRI and PET/CT. Clin Nucl Med. 2017;42:180–6. https://doi.org/10.1097/RLU.0000000000001514.CrossRefPubMed

43.

Paulus DH, Quick HH. Hybrid positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance imaging: challenges, methods, and state of the art of hardware component attenuation correction. Investig Radiol. 2016;51:624–34. https://doi.org/10.1097/RLI.0000000000000289.CrossRef

Title: Prospective comparison of 18F-FDG PET/MRI and 18F-FDG PET/CT for thoracic staging of non-small cell lung cancer
Authors: Julian Kirchner
Lino M. Sawicki
Felix Nensa
Benedikt M. Schaarschmidt
Henning Reis
Marc Ingenwerth
Simon Bogner
Clemens Aigner
Christian Buchbender
Lale Umutlu
Gerald Antoch
Ken Herrmann
Philipp Heusch
Publication date: 01-02-2019
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging / Issue 2/2019
Print ISSN: 1619-7070
Electronic ISSN: 1619-7089
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-018-4109-x

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Prospective comparison of ¹⁸F-FDG PET/MRI and ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT for thoracic staging of non-small cell lung cancer

Abstract

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 2/2019

Accuracy and generalization capability of an automatic method for the detection of typical brain hypometabolism in prodromal Alzheimer disease

Longitudinal association between astrocyte function and glucose metabolism in autosomal dominant Alzheimer’s disease

Correlations between metabolic texture features, genetic heterogeneity, and mutation burden in patients with lung cancer

Why should we be concerned about a “g”?

Performance of 18F-FDG PET/MRI and 18F-FDG PET/CT for T and N staging in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer

Quantifying SV2A density and drug occupancy in the human brain using [11C]UCB-J PET imaging and subcortical white matter as reference tissue