Literature DB >> 20395324

Value of retrospective fusion of PET and MR images in detection of hepatic metastases: comparison with 18F-FDG PET/CT and Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MRI.

Olivio F Donati1, Thomas F Hany, Caecilia S Reiner, Gustav K von Schulthess, Borut Marincek, Burkhardt Seifert, Dominik Weishaupt.   

Abstract

UNLABELLED: The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of lesion detection and diagnostic confidence between (18)F-FDG PET/CT, gadolinium-ethoxybenzyl-diethylenetriamine pentaacetic acid (Gd-EOB-DTPA)-enhanced MRI, and retrospectively fused PET and MRI (PET/MRI).
METHODS: Thirty-seven patients (mean age +/- SD, 60.2 +/- 12 y) with suspected liver metastases underwent PET/CT and Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MRI within 0-30 d (mean, 11.9 +/- 9 d). PET and Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MR image data were retrospectively fused. Images were reviewed independently by 2 readers who identified and characterized liver lesions using PET/CT, Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MRI, and PET/MRI. Each liver lesion was graded on a 5-point confidence scale ranging from definitely benign (grade of 1) to definitely malignant (grade of 5). The accuracy of each technique was determined by receiver-operating-characteristic analysis. Histopathology served as the standard of reference for all patients with malignant lesions.
RESULTS: A total of 85 liver lesions (55 liver metastases [65%] and 30 benign lesions [35%]) were present in 29 (78%) of the 37 patients. Twenty-four (65%) of the 37 patients had liver metastases. The detection rate of liver lesions was significantly lower for PET/CT than for Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MRI (64% and 85%; P = 0.002). Sensitivity in the detection and characterization of liver metastases for PET/CT, Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MRI, PET/MRI in reader 1, and PET/MRI in reader 2 was 76%, 91%, 93%, and 93%, respectively; the respective specificity values were 90%, 100%, 87%, and 97%. The difference in sensitivity between PET/CT and PET/MRI was significant (P = 0.023). The level of confidence regarding liver lesions larger than 1 cm in diameter was significantly higher in PET/MRI than in PET/CT (P = 0.046). Accuracy values (area under the receiver-operating-characteristic curve) for PET/CT, Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MRI, PET/MRI in reader 1, and PET/MRI in reader 2 were 0.85, 0.94, 0.92, and 0.96, respectively.
CONCLUSION: The sensitivity of Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MRI and PET/MRI in the detection of liver metastases is higher than that of PET/CT. Diagnostic confidence was significantly better with PET/MRI than with PET/CT regarding lesions larger than 1 cm in diameter. Compared with Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MRI, PET/MRI resulted in a nonsignificant increase in sensitivity and diagnostic confidence.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20395324     DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.109.068510

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Nucl Med        ISSN: 0161-5505            Impact factor:   10.057


  33 in total

1.  The role of 18FDG PET/CT in the management of colorectal liver metastases.

Authors:  Alec H Engledow; James R A Skipworth; Farrokh Pakzad; Charles Imber; Peter J Ell; Ashley M Groves
Journal:  HPB (Oxford)       Date:  2011-11-14       Impact factor: 3.647

Review 2.  [Combined PET-MRI of the abdomen].

Authors:  Tibor Vag; M Eiber; M Schwaiger
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2015-12       Impact factor: 0.635

3.  Diagnosis value of focal liver lesions with SonoVue®-enhanced ultrasound compared with contrast-enhanced computed tomography and contrast-enhanced MRI: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Yang Guang; LiMei Xie; Hailong Ding; AiLu Cai; Ying Huang
Journal:  J Cancer Res Clin Oncol       Date:  2011-08-18       Impact factor: 4.553

4.  MRI with gadoxetate disodium for colorectal liver metastasis: is it the new "imaging modality of choice"?

Authors:  Shirali Patel; Susannah Cheek; Houssam Osman; D Rohan Jeyarajah
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2014-10-16       Impact factor: 3.452

Review 5.  Beyond Histologic Staging: Emerging Imaging Strategies in Colorectal Cancer with Special Focus on Magnetic Resonance Imaging.

Authors:  Tyler J Fraum; Joseph W Owen; Kathryn J Fowler
Journal:  Clin Colon Rectal Surg       Date:  2016-09

6.  Evaluation of the potential of PET-MRI fusion for detection of liver metastases in patients with neuroendocrine tumours.

Authors:  Nils F Schreiter; Munenobu Nogami; Ingo Steffen; Ulrich-Frank Pape; Bernd Hamm; Winfried Brenner; Rainer Röttgen
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2011-09-09       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 7.  FDG Whole-Body PET/MRI in Oncology: a Systematic Review.

Authors:  Hyun Woo Kwon; Ann-Katharina Becker; Jin Mo Goo; Gi Jeong Cheon
Journal:  Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2016-04-07

8.  Prospective diagnostic test accuracy comparison of computed tomography during arterial portography and Primovist magnetic resonance imaging in the pre-operative assessment of colorectal cancer liver metastases.

Authors:  Jai S Bagia; Alan Chai; Roger Chou; Christopher Chu; John Rouse; Elizabeth Sinclair; Leon Vonthethoff; Armando Teixeira-Pinto
Journal:  HPB (Oxford)       Date:  2015-08-10       Impact factor: 3.647

9.  Protocol requirements and diagnostic value of PET/MR imaging for liver metastasis detection.

Authors:  Caecilia S Reiner; Paul Stolzmann; Lars Husmann; Irene A Burger; Martin W Hüllner; Niklaus G Schaefer; Paul M Schneider; Gustav K von Schulthess; Patrick Veit-Haibach
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2013-12-18       Impact factor: 9.236

10.  A meta-analysis of diffusion-weighted and gadoxetic acid-enhanced MR imaging for the detection of liver metastases.

Authors:  Valérie Vilgrain; Maxime Esvan; Maxime Ronot; Aurore Caumont-Prim; Christophe Aubé; Gilles Chatellier
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2016-02-16       Impact factor: 5.315

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.