PURPOSE: We compared the diagnostic accuracy of fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (FDG PET/CT) and PET/magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) fusion images for gynecological malignancies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 31 patients with gynecological malignancies were enrolled. FDG-PET images were fused to CT, T1- and T2-weighted images (T1WI, T2WI). PET-MRI fusion was performed semiautomatically. We performed three types of evaluation to demonstrate the usefulness of PET/MRI fusion images in comparison with that of inline PET/CT as follows: depiction of the uterus and the ovarian lesions on CT or MRI mapping images (first evaluation); additional information for lesion localization with PET and mapping images (second evaluation); and the image quality of fusion on interpretation (third evaluation). RESULTS: For the first evaluation, the score for T2WI (4.68 +/- 0.65) was significantly higher than that for CT (3.54 +/- 1.02) or T1WI (3.71 +/- 0.97) (P < 0.01). For the second evaluation, the scores for the localization of FDG accumulation showing that T2WI (2.74 +/- 0.57) provided significantly more additional information for the identification of anatomical sites of FDG accumulation than did CT (2.06 +/- 0.68) or T1WI (2.23 +/- 0.61) (P < 0.01). For the third evaluation, the three-point rating scale for the patient group as a whole demonstrated that PET/T2WI (2.72 +/- 0.54) localized the lesion significantly more convincingly than PET/CT (2.23 +/- 0.50) or PET/T1WI (2.29 +/- 0.53) (P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: PET/T2WI fusion images are superior for the detection and localization of gynecological malignancies.
PURPOSE: We compared the diagnostic accuracy of fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (FDG PET/CT) and PET/magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) fusion images for gynecological malignancies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 31 patients with gynecological malignancies were enrolled. FDG-PET images were fused to CT, T1- and T2-weighted images (T1WI, T2WI). PET-MRI fusion was performed semiautomatically. We performed three types of evaluation to demonstrate the usefulness of PET/MRI fusion images in comparison with that of inline PET/CT as follows: depiction of the uterus and the ovarian lesions on CT or MRI mapping images (first evaluation); additional information for lesion localization with PET and mapping images (second evaluation); and the image quality of fusion on interpretation (third evaluation). RESULTS: For the first evaluation, the score for T2WI (4.68 +/- 0.65) was significantly higher than that for CT (3.54 +/- 1.02) or T1WI (3.71 +/- 0.97) (P < 0.01). For the second evaluation, the scores for the localization of FDG accumulation showing that T2WI (2.74 +/- 0.57) provided significantly more additional information for the identification of anatomical sites of FDG accumulation than did CT (2.06 +/- 0.68) or T1WI (2.23 +/- 0.61) (P < 0.01). For the third evaluation, the three-point rating scale for the patient group as a whole demonstrated that PET/T2WI (2.72 +/- 0.54) localized the lesion significantly more convincingly than PET/CT (2.23 +/- 0.50) or PET/T1WI (2.29 +/- 0.53) (P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: PET/T2WI fusion images are superior for the detection and localization of gynecological malignancies.
Authors: P G. Kluetz; C C. Meltzer; V L. Villemagne; P E. Kinahan; S Chander; M A. Martinelli; D W. Townsend Journal: Clin Positron Imaging Date: 2000-11
Authors: Osama Mawlawi; Jeremy J Erasmus; Reginald F Munden; Tinsu Pan; Amy E Knight; Homer A Macapinlac; Donald A Podoloff; Marvin Chasen Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Hedvig Hricak; Constantine Gatsonis; Fergus V Coakley; Bradley Snyder; Caroline Reinhold; Lawrence H Schwartz; Paula J Woodward; Harpreet K Pannu; Marco Amendola; Donald G Mitchell Journal: Radiology Date: 2007-11 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Lisa A Min; Wouter V Vogel; Max J Lahaye; Monique Maas; Maarten L Donswijk; Erik Vegt; Miranda Kusters; Henry J Zijlmans; Katarzyna Jóźwiak; Sander Roberti; Regina G H Beets-Tan; Doenja M J Lambregts Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2019-05-22 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Eric C Ehman; Geoffrey B Johnson; Javier E Villanueva-Meyer; Soonmee Cha; Andrew Palmera Leynes; Peder Eric Zufall Larson; Thomas A Hope Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2017-03-30 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Alessandra Musto; Gaia Grassetto; Maria Cristina Marzola; Sotirios Chondrogiannis; Anna Margherita Maffione; Lucia Rampin; David Fuster; Francesco Giammarile; Patrick M Colletti; Domenico Rubello Journal: Yonsei Med J Date: 2014-11 Impact factor: 2.759