PURPOSE: To compare maximum and mean standardized uptake values (SUVmax/mean) of normal organ tissues derived from [(18)F]-fluoro-desoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance imaging (PET/MRI) using MR attenuation correction (MRAC) (DIXON-based 4-segment μ-map) with [(18)F]-FDG positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) using CT-based attenuation correction (CTAC). METHODS AND MATERIALS: In 25 oncologic patients (15 men, 10 women; age 57 ± 13 years) after routine whole-body FDG-PET/CT (60 min after injection of 290 ± 40 MBq [(18)F]-FDG) a whole-body PET/MRI was performed (Magnetom Biograph mMR, Siemens Healthcare, Erlangen, Germany). Volumes of interest of 1.0 cm(3) were drawn in 7 physiological organ sites in MRAC-PET and the corresponding CTAC-PET images manually. Spearman correlation coefficients were calculated to compare MRAC- and CTAC based SUV values; Wilcoxon-Matched-Pairs signed ranks test was performed to test for potential differences. RESULTS: The mean delay between FDG-PET/CT and PET/MRI was 92 ± 18 min. Excellent correlations of SUV values were found for the heart muscle (SUVmax/mean: R=0.97/0.97); reasonably good correlations were found for the liver (R=0.65/0.72), bone marrow (R=0.42/0.41) and the SUVmax of the psoas muscle (R=0.41). For subcutaneous fat, the correlation coefficient was 0.66 for SUVmean (p<0.05). Correlations between MRAC and CTAC were non-significant for SUVmean of the psoas muscle, SUVmax of subcutaneous fat, SUVmax and SUVmean of the lungs, SUVmax and SUVmean of the blood-pool. The median SUVmax and SUVmean in MRAC-PET were lower than the respective CTAC values in all organs (p<0.05) but heart (SUVmax) and the bone marrow (SUVmean). CONCLUSION: In conclusion, in oncologic patients examined with PET/CT and PET/MRI SUVmax and SUVmean values generally correlate well in normal organ tissues, except the lung, subcutaneous fat and the blood pool. SUVmax and SUVmean derived from PET/MRI can be used reliably in clinical routine.
PURPOSE: To compare maximum and mean standardized uptake values (SUVmax/mean) of normal organ tissues derived from [(18)F]-fluoro-desoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance imaging (PET/MRI) using MR attenuation correction (MRAC) (DIXON-based 4-segment μ-map) with [(18)F]-FDG positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) using CT-based attenuation correction (CTAC). METHODS AND MATERIALS: In 25 oncologic patients (15 men, 10 women; age 57 ± 13 years) after routine whole-body FDG-PET/CT (60 min after injection of 290 ± 40 MBq [(18)F]-FDG) a whole-body PET/MRI was performed (Magnetom Biograph mMR, Siemens Healthcare, Erlangen, Germany). Volumes of interest of 1.0 cm(3) were drawn in 7 physiological organ sites in MRAC-PET and the corresponding CTAC-PET images manually. Spearman correlation coefficients were calculated to compare MRAC- and CTAC based SUV values; Wilcoxon-Matched-Pairs signed ranks test was performed to test for potential differences. RESULTS: The mean delay between FDG-PET/CT and PET/MRI was 92 ± 18 min. Excellent correlations of SUV values were found for the heart muscle (SUVmax/mean: R=0.97/0.97); reasonably good correlations were found for the liver (R=0.65/0.72), bone marrow (R=0.42/0.41) and the SUVmax of the psoas muscle (R=0.41). For subcutaneous fat, the correlation coefficient was 0.66 for SUVmean (p<0.05). Correlations between MRAC and CTAC were non-significant for SUVmean of the psoas muscle, SUVmax of subcutaneous fat, SUVmax and SUVmean of the lungs, SUVmax and SUVmean of the blood-pool. The median SUVmax and SUVmean in MRAC-PET were lower than the respective CTAC values in all organs (p<0.05) but heart (SUVmax) and the bone marrow (SUVmean). CONCLUSION: In conclusion, in oncologic patients examined with PET/CT and PET/MRI SUVmax and SUVmean values generally correlate well in normal organ tissues, except the lung, subcutaneous fat and the blood pool. SUVmax and SUVmean derived from PET/MRI can be used reliably in clinical routine.
Authors: D L Bailey; B J Pichler; B Gückel; H Barthel; A J Beer; J Bremerich; J Czernin; A Drzezga; C Franzius; V Goh; M Hartenbach; H Iida; A Kjaer; C la Fougère; C N Ladefoged; I Law; K Nikolaou; H H Quick; O Sabri; J Schäfer; M Schäfers; H F Wehrl; T Beyer Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2015-10 Impact factor: 3.488
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: Christoph Rischpler; Ralf J Dirschinger; Stephan G Nekolla; Hans Kossmann; Stefania Nicolosi; Franziska Hanus; Sandra van Marwick; Karl P Kunze; Alexander Meinicke; Katharina Götze; Adnan Kastrati; Nicolas Langwieser; Tareq Ibrahim; Matthias Nahrendorf; Markus Schwaiger; Karl-Ludwig Laugwitz Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2016-04 Impact factor: 7.792
Authors: Jason Bini; Mootaz Eldib; Philip M Robson; Claudia Calcagno; Zahi A Fayad Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2015-04-22 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Kaitlin A Quinn; Joel S Rosenblum; Casey A Rimland; K Bates Gribbons; Mark A Ahlman; Peter C Grayson Journal: Semin Arthritis Rheum Date: 2019-07-24 Impact factor: 5.532
Authors: Julian Kirchner; Lino M Sawicki; Felix Nensa; Benedikt M Schaarschmidt; Henning Reis; Marc Ingenwerth; Simon Bogner; Clemens Aigner; Christian Buchbender; Lale Umutlu; Gerald Antoch; Ken Herrmann; Philipp Heusch Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2018-08-03 Impact factor: 9.236