PURPOSE: PET/MR hybrid scanners have recently been introduced, but not yet validated. The aim of this study was to compare the PET components of a PET/CT hybrid system and of a simultaneous whole-body PET/MR hybrid system with regard to reproducibility of lesion detection and quantitation of tracer uptake. METHODS: A total of 46 patients underwent a whole-body PET/CT scan 1 h after injection and an average of 88 min later a second scan using a hybrid PET/MR system. The radioactive tracers used were (18)F-deoxyglucose (FDG), (18)F-ethylcholine (FEC) and (68)Ga-DOTATATE (Ga-DOTATATE). The PET images from PET/CT (PET(CT)) and from PET/MR (PET(MR)) were analysed for tracer-positive lesions. Regional tracer uptake in these foci was quantified using volumes of interest, and maximal and average standardized uptake values (SUV(max) and SUV(avg), respectively) were calculated. RESULTS: Of the 46 patients, 43 were eligible for comparison and statistical analysis. All lesions except one identified by PET(CT) were identified by PET(MR) (99.2 %). In 38 patients (88.4 %), the same number of foci were identified by PET(CT) and by PET(MR). In four patients, more lesions were identified by PET(MR) than by PET(CT), in one patient PET(CT) revealed an additional focus compared to PET(MR). The mean SUV(max) and SUV(avg) of all lesions determined by PET(MR) were by 21 % and 11 % lower, respectively, than the values determined by PET(CT) (p < 0.05), and a strong correlation between these variables was identified (Spearman rho 0.835; p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: PET/MR showed equivalent performance in terms of qualitative lesion detection to PET/CT. The differences demonstrated in quantitation of tracer uptake between PET(CT) and PET(MR) were minor, but statistically significant. Nevertheless, a more detailed study of the quantitative accuracy of PET(MR) and the factors governing it is needed to ultimately assess its accuracy in measuring tissue tracer concentrations.
PURPOSE: PET/MR hybrid scanners have recently been introduced, but not yet validated. The aim of this study was to compare the PET components of a PET/CT hybrid system and of a simultaneous whole-body PET/MR hybrid system with regard to reproducibility of lesion detection and quantitation of tracer uptake. METHODS: A total of 46 patients underwent a whole-body PET/CT scan 1 h after injection and an average of 88 min later a second scan using a hybrid PET/MR system. The radioactive tracers used were (18)F-deoxyglucose (FDG), (18)F-ethylcholine (FEC) and (68)Ga-DOTATATE (Ga-DOTATATE). The PET images from PET/CT (PET(CT)) and from PET/MR (PET(MR)) were analysed for tracer-positive lesions. Regional tracer uptake in these foci was quantified using volumes of interest, and maximal and average standardized uptake values (SUV(max) and SUV(avg), respectively) were calculated. RESULTS: Of the 46 patients, 43 were eligible for comparison and statistical analysis. All lesions except one identified by PET(CT) were identified by PET(MR) (99.2 %). In 38 patients (88.4 %), the same number of foci were identified by PET(CT) and by PET(MR). In four patients, more lesions were identified by PET(MR) than by PET(CT), in one patient PET(CT) revealed an additional focus compared to PET(MR). The mean SUV(max) and SUV(avg) of all lesions determined by PET(MR) were by 21 % and 11 % lower, respectively, than the values determined by PET(CT) (p < 0.05), and a strong correlation between these variables was identified (Spearman rho 0.835; p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: PET/MR showed equivalent performance in terms of qualitative lesion detection to PET/CT. The differences demonstrated in quantitation of tracer uptake between PET(CT) and PET(MR) were minor, but statistically significant. Nevertheless, a more detailed study of the quantitative accuracy of PET(MR) and the factors governing it is needed to ultimately assess its accuracy in measuring tissue tracer concentrations.
Authors: Bernd J Pichler; Martin S Judenhofer; Ciprian Catana; Jeffrey H Walton; Manfred Kneilling; Robert E Nutt; Stefan B Siegel; Claus D Claussen; Simon R Cherry Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2006-04 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Matthias Eiber; Axel Martinez-Möller; Michael Souvatzoglou; Konstantin Holzapfel; Anja Pickhard; Dennys Löffelbein; Ivan Santi; Ernst J Rummeny; Sibylle Ziegler; Markus Schwaiger; Stephan G Nekolla; Ambros J Beer Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2011-06-18 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Gaspar Delso; Sebastian Fürst; Björn Jakoby; Ralf Ladebeck; Carl Ganter; Stephan G Nekolla; Markus Schwaiger; Sibylle I Ziegler Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2011-11-11 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: H Zaidi; N Ojha; M Morich; J Griesmer; Z Hu; P Maniawski; O Ratib; D Izquierdo-Garcia; Z A Fayad; L Shao Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2011-04-20 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Axel Martinez-Möller; Michael Souvatzoglou; Gaspar Delso; Ralph A Bundschuh; Christophe Chefd'hotel; Sibylle I Ziegler; Nassir Navab; Markus Schwaiger; Stephan G Nekolla Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2009-03-16 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Samira A Brooks; Amir H Khandani; Julia R Fielding; Weili Lin; Tiffany Sills; Yueh Lee; Alexandra Arreola; Mathew I Milowsky; Eric M Wallen; Michael E Woods; Angie B Smith; Mathew E Nielsen; Joel S Parker; David S Lalush; W Kimryn Rathmell Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2016-01-19 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Scott D Wollenweber; Gaspar Delso; Timothy Deller; David Goldhaber; Martin Hüllner; Patrick Veit-Haibach Journal: MAGMA Date: 2013-06-26 Impact factor: 2.310
Authors: A A Kohan; J A Kolthammer; J L Vercher-Conejero; C Rubbert; S Partovi; R Jones; K A Herrmann; P Faulhaber Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2013-06-14 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Axel Wetter; Christine Lipponer; Felix Nensa; Philipp Heusch; Herbert Rübben; Jens-Christian Altenbernd; Thomas Schlosser; Andreas Bockisch; Thorsten Pöppel; Thomas Lauenstein; James Nagarajah Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2013-10-02 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Jeffrey M C Lau; R Laforest; H Sotoudeh; X Nie; S Sharma; J McConathy; E Novak; A Priatna; R J Gropler; P K Woodard Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2015-10-23 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Mark Oehmigen; Maike E Lindemann; Marcel Gratz; Julian Kirchner; Verena Ruhlmann; Lale Umutlu; Jan Ole Blumhagen; Matthias Fenchel; Harald H Quick Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2017-11-09 Impact factor: 9.236