OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate that positron emission tomography (PET)/magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) fusion was feasible in characterizing pancreatic tumors (PTs), comparing MRI and computed tomography (CT) as mapping images for fusion with PET as well as fused PET/MRI and PET/CT. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 47 sets of (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose ((18)F -FDG) PET/CT and MRI examinations to evaluate suspected or known pancreatic cancer. To assess the ability of mapping images for fusion with PET, CT (of PET/CT), T1- and T2-weighted (w) MR images (all non-contrast) were graded regarding the visibility of PT (5-point confidence scale). Fused PET/CT, PET/T1-w or T2-w MR images of the upper abdomen were evaluated to determine whether mapping images provided additional diagnostic information to PET alone (3-point scale). The overall quality of PET/CT or PET/MRI sets in diagnosis was also assessed (3-point scale). These PET/MRI-related scores were compared to PET/CT-related scores and the accuracy in characterizing PTs was compared. RESULTS: Forty-three PTs were visualized on CT or MRI, including 30 with abnormal FDG uptake and 13 without. The confidence score for the visibility of PT was significantly higher on T1-w MRI than CT. The scores for additional diagnostic information to PET and overall quality of each image set in diagnosis were significantly higher on the PET/T1-w MRI set than the PET/CT set. The diagnostic accuracy was higher on PET/T1-w or PET/T2-w MRI (93.0 and 90.7%, respectively) than PET/CT (88.4%), but statistical significance was not obtained. CONCLUSION: PET/MRI fusion, especially PET with T1-w MRI, was demonstrated to be superior to PET/CT in characterizing PTs, offering better mapping and fusion image quality.
OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate that positron emission tomography (PET)/magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) fusion was feasible in characterizing pancreatic tumors (PTs), comparing MRI and computed tomography (CT) as mapping images for fusion with PET as well as fused PET/MRI and PET/CT. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 47 sets of (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose ((18)F -FDG) PET/CT and MRI examinations to evaluate suspected or known pancreatic cancer. To assess the ability of mapping images for fusion with PET, CT (of PET/CT), T1- and T2-weighted (w) MR images (all non-contrast) were graded regarding the visibility of PT (5-point confidence scale). Fused PET/CT, PET/T1-w or T2-w MR images of the upper abdomen were evaluated to determine whether mapping images provided additional diagnostic information to PET alone (3-point scale). The overall quality of PET/CT or PET/MRI sets in diagnosis was also assessed (3-point scale). These PET/MRI-related scores were compared to PET/CT-related scores and the accuracy in characterizing PTs was compared. RESULTS: Forty-three PTs were visualized on CT or MRI, including 30 with abnormal FDG uptake and 13 without. The confidence score for the visibility of PT was significantly higher on T1-w MRI than CT. The scores for additional diagnostic information to PET and overall quality of each image set in diagnosis were significantly higher on the PET/T1-w MRI set than the PET/CT set. The diagnostic accuracy was higher on PET/T1-w or PET/T2-w MRI (93.0 and 90.7%, respectively) than PET/CT (88.4%), but statistical significance was not obtained. CONCLUSION: PET/MRI fusion, especially PET with T1-w MRI, was demonstrated to be superior to PET/CT in characterizing PTs, offering better mapping and fusion image quality.
Authors: Anna C Pfannenberg; Philip Aschoff; Klaus Brechtel; Mark Müller; Roland Bares; Frank Paulsen; Jutta Scheiderbauer; Godehard Friedel; Claus D Claussen; Susanne M Eschmann Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2006-08-01 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: J Ruf; E Lopez Hänninen; M Böhmig; I Koch; T Denecke; M Plotkin; J Langrehr; B Wiedenmann; R Felix; H Amthauer Journal: Pancreatology Date: 2006-11-13 Impact factor: 3.996
Authors: Shahid M Hussain; Pieter E Zondervan; Jan N M IJzermans; Solko W Schalm; Rob A de Man; Gabriel P Krestin Journal: Radiographics Date: 2002 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: Klaus Strobel; Stefan Heinrich; Ujwal Bhure; Jan Soyka; Patrick Veit-Haibach; Bernhard C Pestalozzi; Pierre-Alain Clavien; Thomas F Hany Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2008-08-14 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: T Gabata; O Matsui; M Kadoya; J Yoshikawa; S Miyayama; T Takashima; T Nagakawa; M Kayahara; A Nonomura Journal: Radiology Date: 1994-12 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Dushyant V Sahani; Pietro A Bonaffini; Onofrio A Catalano; Alexander R Guimaraes; Michael A Blake Journal: Radiographics Date: 2012 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: Lawrence Mj Best; Vishal Rawji; Stephen P Pereira; Brian R Davidson; Kurinchi Selvan Gurusamy Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2017-04-17
Authors: Karsten Beiderwellen; Johannes Grueneisen; Verena Ruhlmann; Paul Buderath; Bahriye Aktas; Philipp Heusch; Oliver Kraff; Michael Forsting; Thomas C Lauenstein; Lale Umutlu Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2014-09-16 Impact factor: 9.236