PURPOSE: This study compared prone acquisition of PET scans with traditional supine acquisition to improve fusion of PET scans with MRI scans and improve evaluation of enhancing breast lesions detected on MRI. MATERIALS AND METHODS: MRI breast scans are acquired in the prone position using a breast coil to allow the breasts to hang pendant. An apparatus was fabricated to allow prone acquisition of PET scans. Fused scans from 2 patients acquired both prone and supine were contrasted with those from 3 patients acquired supine only. All 5 MRI scans were acquired on standard scanners. The PET scans were acquired with a PET/CT unit using a low-dose CT scan for attenuation correction. The PET and MRI volumes were matched twice (using a semiautomated registration method) by different operators. The additional value of fusion was judged using reports from the original (nonfused) MRI and PET, joint rereading of the volumes side by side, and examination of fused images. RESULTS: Of 12 enhancing lesions on breast MRI, 7 demonstrated uptake on PET/CT. In the 3 supine-only cases, the fused images were not interpretable because of the marked distortion of the breasts. In the 2 prone cases, the fused images increased our confidence in characterizing a lesion as benign or malignant. Interpretations were confirmed by clinical follow up in 2 or histologic results in 3 patients. CONCLUSIONS: PET MRI fusion is feasible and may assist in localizing lesions detected on either study. A more extensive study is underway to confirm the value of this fusion technique.
PURPOSE: This study compared prone acquisition of PET scans with traditional supine acquisition to improve fusion of PET scans with MRI scans and improve evaluation of enhancing breast lesions detected on MRI. MATERIALS AND METHODS: MRI breast scans are acquired in the prone position using a breast coil to allow the breasts to hang pendant. An apparatus was fabricated to allow prone acquisition of PET scans. Fused scans from 2 patients acquired both prone and supine were contrasted with those from 3 patients acquired supine only. All 5 MRI scans were acquired on standard scanners. The PET scans were acquired with a PET/CT unit using a low-dose CT scan for attenuation correction. The PET and MRI volumes were matched twice (using a semiautomated registration method) by different operators. The additional value of fusion was judged using reports from the original (nonfused) MRI and PET, joint rereading of the volumes side by side, and examination of fused images. RESULTS: Of 12 enhancing lesions on breast MRI, 7 demonstrated uptake on PET/CT. In the 3 supine-only cases, the fused images were not interpretable because of the marked distortion of the breasts. In the 2 prone cases, the fused images increased our confidence in characterizing a lesion as benign or malignant. Interpretations were confirmed by clinical follow up in 2 or histologic results in 3 patients. CONCLUSIONS: PET MRI fusion is feasible and may assist in localizing lesions detected on either study. A more extensive study is underway to confirm the value of this fusion technique.
Authors: Heinrich Magometschnigg; Katja Pinker; Thomas Helbich; Anita Brandstetter; Margaretha Rudas; Thomas Nakuz; Pascal Baltzer; Wolfgang Wadsak; Marcus Hacker; Michael Weber; Peter Dubsky; Martin Filipits Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2019-10 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Heinrich F Magometschnigg; Pascal A Baltzer; Barbara Fueger; Thomas H Helbich; Georgios Karanikas; Peter Dubsky; Margaretha Rudas; Michael Weber; Katja Pinker Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2015-06-30 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Richard G Abramson; Katrina F Lambert; Laurie B Jones-Jackson; Lori R Arlinghaus; Jason Williams; Vandana G Abramson; A Bapsi Chakravarthy; Thomas E Yankeelov Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2015-04-10 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: T A Heusner; S Hahn; C Jonkmanns; S Kuemmel; F Otterbach; M E Hamami; A R Stahl; A Bockisch; M Forsting; G Antoch Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2010-10-19 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Young Han Lee; Kyu-Ho Song; Jaemoon Yang; Won Jun Kang; Keum Sil Lee; Min Jung Kim; Eun-Kyung Kim; Dan Heo; Bo-Young Choe; Jin-Suck Suh Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2021-12-01 Impact factor: 2.102
Authors: Xia Li; Richard G Abramson; Lori R Arlinghaus; Anuradha Bapsi Chakravarthy; Vandana Abramson; Ingrid Mayer; Jaime Farley; Dominique Delbeke; Thomas E Yankeelov Journal: EJNMMI Res Date: 2012-11-16 Impact factor: 3.138