OBJECTIVE: To compare diffusion weighted whole body imaging with background body signal suppression (DWIBS) with hybrid Positron Emission Computed Tomography (HPET/CT) on clinical value in oncology. METHODS: 43 patients with oncological diseases were enrolled in our hospital from October, 2008 to April, 2010. All the cases underwent DWIBS and HPET/CT within 14 days. Combined with other imagings, lesions detected by both modalities were evaluated. Lesions were confirmed by pathology, cytology or clinical diagnosis (needed no less than 6 months and three times follow-up). RESULTS: The overall detection rate of the DWIBS and HPET/CT were 90.3% (261/289), 86.6% (251/289), concordant ratio of the two modalities was 88.2% (255/289). There was no statistical difference between DWIBS and HPET/CT on detecting lesions (P>0.05). HPET/CT was significantly more sensitive in detecting lesions in lung (P<0.05), whereas DWIBS was more sensitive in identifying lesions in brain and bone (P<0.05). With regard to finding lesions in liver and lymph node, the two procedures had no significant difference (P>0.05). CONCLUSION: DWIBS and HPET/CT have a certain degree of consistency in terms of identifying lesions. However, they have advantages and disadvantages in some organs or tissues, which should be taken into full consideration in clinical practice.
OBJECTIVE: To compare diffusion weighted whole body imaging with background body signal suppression (DWIBS) with hybrid Positron Emission Computed Tomography (HPET/CT) on clinical value in oncology. METHODS: 43 patients with oncological diseases were enrolled in our hospital from October, 2008 to April, 2010. All the cases underwent DWIBS and HPET/CT within 14 days. Combined with other imagings, lesions detected by both modalities were evaluated. Lesions were confirmed by pathology, cytology or clinical diagnosis (needed no less than 6 months and three times follow-up). RESULTS: The overall detection rate of the DWIBS and HPET/CT were 90.3% (261/289), 86.6% (251/289), concordant ratio of the two modalities was 88.2% (255/289). There was no statistical difference between DWIBS and HPET/CT on detecting lesions (P>0.05). HPET/CT was significantly more sensitive in detecting lesions in lung (P<0.05), whereas DWIBS was more sensitive in identifying lesions in brain and bone (P<0.05). With regard to finding lesions in liver and lymph node, the two procedures had no significant difference (P>0.05). CONCLUSION: DWIBS and HPET/CT have a certain degree of consistency in terms of identifying lesions. However, they have advantages and disadvantages in some organs or tissues, which should be taken into full consideration in clinical practice.
Authors: L Liebsch; S Kailayangiri; L Beck; B Altvater; R Koch; C Dierkes; M Hotfilder; N Nagelmann; C Faber; H Kooijman; J Ring; V Vieth; C Rossig Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2013-07-09 Impact factor: 7.640