Literature DB >> 23070096

Detection rate, location, and size of pulmonary nodules in trimodality PET/CT-MR: comparison of low-dose CT and Dixon-based MR imaging.

Paul Stolzmann1, Patrick Veit-Haibach, Natalie Chuck, Cristina Rossi, Thomas Frauenfelder, Hatem Alkadhi, Gustav von Schulthess, Andreas Boss.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to prospectively compare the detection rate, the location, and the size of pulmonary nodules in low-dose computed tomography (CT) and in magnetic resonance (MR) imaging with a 3-dimensional (3D) dual-echo gradient-echo (GRE) pulse sequence using a trimodality positron emission tomography (PET)/CT-MR setup.
METHODS: Forty consecutive patients (25 men and 15 women; mean [SD] age 64 [12] years) referred for staging of malignancy were prospectively included in this single-center, Institutional Review Board-approved study. Imaging using trimodality PET/CT-MR setup (full ring, time-of-flight PET/CT and 3-T whole-body MR imager) comprised PET, low-dose CT for anatomic referencing/attenuation correction of PET, and MR imaging with 3D dual-echo GRE pulse sequence, allowing the reconstruction of water-only (WO) and in-phase (IP) images. Two blinded and independent readers assessed all images randomly for the presence, the location, and the size of pulmonary nodules. Detection rates, defined as the proportion of screened participants with at least 1 pulmonary nodule, were compared between low-dose CT and MR imaging including both WO and IP images.
RESULTS: Inter-reader agreements were high regarding the location (k = 0.93-0.98) and the size of pulmonary nodules (intraclass correlation analysis = 0.94-0.98) in CT and in MR imaging. Computed tomographic scans revealed 66 pulmonary nodules in 34 of the 40 patients (85%), whereas WO and IP images showed 56 and 58 pulmonary nodules in 33 of the 40 patients (83%), respectively. The detection rates of CT and MR imaging were similar (P's >; 0.05) regarding all nodules, 18F-Fluordesoxyglucose-positive pulmonary nodules, and 18F-Fluordesoxyglucose-negative pulmonary nodules. The size of pulmonary nodules was significantly smaller on WO (P <; 0.05; mean difference, 3 mm; 95% confidence interval, - 13 to 18 mm) and IP images (P <; 0.001; mean difference, 4 mm; 95% confidence interval, -5 to 12 mm) compared with in CT.
CONCLUSIONS: Our study indicates that a 3D Dixon-based, dual-echo GRE pulse sequence might be suitable for lung imaging in clinical whole-body PET/MR examinations. Although the detection rates were lower, there was no statistically significant difference on a patient-based evaluation concerning detection rates of pulmonary nodules compared with low-dose CT. Assessment of nodule location can be performed equally well with MR imaging.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23070096     DOI: 10.1097/RLI.0b013e31826f2de9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Invest Radiol        ISSN: 0020-9996            Impact factor:   6.016


  31 in total

1.  PET/MRI and PET/CT: is there room for both at the top of the food chain?

Authors:  Torsten Kuwert; Philipp Ritt
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2015-11-19       Impact factor: 9.236

2.  Comments on characterization of solitary pulmonary nodules with 18F-FDG PET/CT relative activity distribution analysis.

Authors:  Orazio Schillaci; Ferdinando F Calabria
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 2.895

3.  Thoracic staging of non-small-cell lung cancer using integrated (18)F-FDG PET/MR imaging: diagnostic value of different MR sequences.

Authors:  Benedikt Schaarschmidt; Christian Buchbender; Benedikt Gomez; Christian Rubbert; Florian Hild; Jens Köhler; Johannes Grueneisen; Henning Reis; Verena Ruhlmann; Axel Wetter; Harald H Quick; Gerald Antoch; Philipp Heusch
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2015-04-08       Impact factor: 9.236

Review 4.  PET/MR in prostate cancer: technical aspects and potential diagnostic value.

Authors:  Michael Souvatzoglou; Matthias Eiber; Axel Martinez-Moeller; Sebastian Fürst; Konstantin Holzapfel; Tobias Maurer; Sibylle Ziegler; Stephan Nekolla; Markus Schwaiger; Ambros J Beer
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2013-05-24       Impact factor: 9.236

Review 5.  Clinical oncologic applications of PET/MRI: a new horizon.

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

Review 6.  Clinical pediatric positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance program: a guide to successful implementation.

Authors:  Sandra Saade-Lemus; Elad Nevo; Iman Soliman; Hansel J Otero; Ralph W Magee; Elizabeth T Drum; Lisa J States
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  2020-02-19

7.  Clinical Evaluation of PET Image Quality as a Function of Acquisition Time in a New TOF-PET/MRI Compared to TOF-PET/CT--Initial Results.

Authors:  Konstantinos G Zeimpekis; Felipe Barbosa; Martin Hüllner; Edwin ter Voert; Helen Davison; Patrick Veit-Haibach; Gaspar Delso
Journal:  Mol Imaging Biol       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 3.488

Review 8.  PET-MR imaging using a tri-modality PET/CT-MR system with a dedicated shuttle in clinical routine.

Authors:  Patrick Veit-Haibach; Felix Pierre Kuhn; Florian Wiesinger; Gaspar Delso; Gustav von Schulthess
Journal:  MAGMA       Date:  2012-10-09       Impact factor: 2.310

9.  Added Value of Contrast Medium in Whole-Body Hybrid Positron Emission Tomography/Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Comparison between Contrast-Enhanced and Non-Contrast-Enhanced Protocols.

Authors:  Filiz Celebi; Emetullah Cindil; Dauren Sarsenov; Bulent Unalan; Cem Balcı
Journal:  Med Princ Pract       Date:  2019-06-17       Impact factor: 1.927

Review 10.  18F-FDG PET/CT and PET/MRI Perform Equally Well in Cancer: Evidence from Studies on More Than 2,300 Patients.

Authors:  Claudio Spick; Ken Herrmann; Johannes Czernin
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2016-01-07       Impact factor: 10.057

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.