PURPOSE: The present study compares the diagnostic value of (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) and MRI to combined/registered (18)F-FDG PET/MRI for staging and restaging in paediatric oncology. METHODS: Over 8 years and 2 months, 270 (18)F-FDG PET and 270 MRI examinations (mean interval 5 days) were performed in 132 patients with proven (n = 117) or suspected (n = 15) malignant disease: solid tumours (n = 64), systemic malignancy (n = 53) and benign disease (n = 15). A total of 259 suspected tumour lesions were analysed retrospectively during primary diagnosis and 554 lesions during follow-up. Image analysis was performed separately on each modality, followed by analysis of combined and registered (18)F-FDG PET/MRI imaging. RESULTS: A total of 813 lesions were evaluated and confirmed by histopathology (n = 158) and/or imaging follow-up (n = 655) after 6 months. In the separate analysis of (18)F-FDG PET and MRI, sensitivity was 86 %/94 % and specificity 85 %/38 %. Combined/registered (18)F-FDG PET/MRI led to a sensitivity of 97 %/97 % and specificity of 81 %/82 %. False-positive results ((18)F-FDG PET n = 69, MRI n = 281, combined (18)F-FDG PET/MRI n = 85, registered (18)F-FDG PET/MRI n = 80) were due to physiological uptake or post-therapeutic changes. False-negative results ((18)F-FDG PET n = 50, MRI n = 20, combined (18)F-FDG PET/MRI n = 11, registered (18)F-FDG PET/MRI n = 11) were based on low uptake or minimal morphological changes. Examination-based evaluation during follow-up showed a sensitivity/specificity of 91 %/81 % for (18)F-FDG PET, 93 %/30 % for MRI and 96 %/72 % for combined (18)F-FDG PET/MRI. CONCLUSION: For the detection of single tumour lesions, registered (18)F-FDG PET/MRI proved to be the methodology of choice for adequate tumour staging. In the examination-based evaluation, MRI alone performed better than (18)F-FDG PET and combined/registered imaging during primary diagnosis. At follow-up, however, the examination-based evaluation demonstrated a superiority of (18)F-FDG PET alone.
PURPOSE: The present study compares the diagnostic value of (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) and MRI to combined/registered (18)F-FDG PET/MRI for staging and restaging in paediatric oncology. METHODS: Over 8 years and 2 months, 270 (18)F-FDG PET and 270 MRI examinations (mean interval 5 days) were performed in 132 patients with proven (n = 117) or suspected (n = 15) malignant disease: solid tumours (n = 64), systemic malignancy (n = 53) and benign disease (n = 15). A total of 259 suspected tumour lesions were analysed retrospectively during primary diagnosis and 554 lesions during follow-up. Image analysis was performed separately on each modality, followed by analysis of combined and registered (18)F-FDG PET/MRI imaging. RESULTS: A total of 813 lesions were evaluated and confirmed by histopathology (n = 158) and/or imaging follow-up (n = 655) after 6 months. In the separate analysis of (18)F-FDG PET and MRI, sensitivity was 86 %/94 % and specificity 85 %/38 %. Combined/registered (18)F-FDG PET/MRI led to a sensitivity of 97 %/97 % and specificity of 81 %/82 %. False-positive results ((18)F-FDG PET n = 69, MRI n = 281, combined (18)F-FDG PET/MRI n = 85, registered (18)F-FDG PET/MRI n = 80) were due to physiological uptake or post-therapeutic changes. False-negative results ((18)F-FDG PET n = 50, MRI n = 20, combined (18)F-FDG PET/MRI n = 11, registered (18)F-FDG PET/MRI n = 11) were based on low uptake or minimal morphological changes. Examination-based evaluation during follow-up showed a sensitivity/specificity of 91 %/81 % for (18)F-FDG PET, 93 %/30 % for MRI and 96 %/72 % for combined (18)F-FDG PET/MRI. CONCLUSION: For the detection of single tumour lesions, registered (18)F-FDG PET/MRI proved to be the methodology of choice for adequate tumour staging. In the examination-based evaluation, MRI alone performed better than (18)F-FDG PET and combined/registered imaging during primary diagnosis. At follow-up, however, the examination-based evaluation demonstrated a superiority of (18)F-FDG PET alone.
Authors: H E Daldrup-Link; C Franzius; T M Link; D Laukamp; J Sciuk; H Jürgens; O Schober; E J Rummeny Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2001-07 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Malcolm A Smith; Nita L Seibel; Sean F Altekruse; Lynn A G Ries; Danielle L Melbert; Maura O'Leary; Franklin O Smith; Gregory H Reaman Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-04-19 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Gerald Antoch; Florian M Vogt; Lutz S Freudenberg; Fridun Nazaradeh; Susanne C Goehde; Jörg Barkhausen; Gerlinde Dahmen; Andreas Bockisch; Jörg F Debatin; Stefan G Ruehm Journal: JAMA Date: 2003-12-24 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Sasan Partovi; Andres Kohan; Christian Rubbert; Jose Luis Vercher-Conejero; Chiara Gaeta; Roger Yuh; Lisa Zipp; Karin A Herrmann; Mark R Robbin; Zhenghong Lee; Raymond F Muzic; Peter Faulhaber; Pablo R Ros Journal: Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2014-03-20
Authors: Elise M Blanchet; Corina Millo; Victoria Martucci; Roberto Maass-Moreno; David A Bluemke; Karel Pacak Journal: Clin Nucl Med Date: 2014-03 Impact factor: 7.794
Authors: Marcelo A Queiroz; Martin Hüllner; Felix Kuhn; Gerhardt Huber; Christian Meerwein; Spyros Kollias; Gustav von Schulthess; Patrick Veit-Haibach Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2014-02-28 Impact factor: 9.236