OBJECTIVES: To compare fused gadoxetate-enhanced Ga-68-DOTANOC PET/MRI and Ga-68-DOTANOC PET/DWI (diffusion-weighted imaging) for the assessment of abdominal neuroendocrine tumours (NETs). METHODS: Eighteen patients with suspected or histologically proven NETs of the abdomen were enrolled in this retrospective study. All patients underwent Ga-68-DOTANOC PET/CT for a primary search, staging, or restaging, and received an additional MRI, including dynamic gadoxetate-enhanced T1-weighted sequences and DWI (b-values 50, 300 and 600). Co-registered gadoxetate-enhanced PET/MRI and PET/DWI were separately analysed for NET lesions by a nuclear medicine physician and a radiologist in consensus. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated on a per-region, per-organ and per-patient basis. RESULTS: Eighty-seven out of 684 anatomical regions, and 23 out of 270 organs, were NET-positive in 14 out of 18 patients. Region-based sensitivities and specificities were 97.7 % and 99.7 % for gadoxetate-enhanced PET/MRI and 98.9 % and 99.7 % for PET/DWI. Organ-based sensitivities and specificities were 91.3 % and 99.6 % for gadoxetate-enhanced PET/MRI and 95.7 % and 99.6 % for PET/DWI. Finally, patient-based sensitivities and specificities were 100 % and 100 % for gadoxetate-enhanced PET/MRI and 100 % and 75 % for PET/DWI. Sensitivities and specificities of the two methods did not differ significantly. CONCLUSIONS: Gadoxetate-enhanced Ga-68-DOTANOC PET/MRI and Ga-68-DOTANOC PET/DWI are equally useful for the assessment of abdominal NETs. KEY POINTS: • Positron emission tomography and magnetic resonance imaging can both assess neuroendocrine tumours. • Fusion of PET/MR imaging provides helpful information. • Gadoxetate-enhanced Ga-68-DOTANOC PET/MRI and Ga-68-DOTANOC PET/DWI assess neuroendocrine tumours equally well. • PET/DWI is inherently simpler than gadoxetate-enhanced PET/MRI. • Only benign hepatic lesions pose a potential diagnostic dilemma for PET/DWI.
OBJECTIVES: To compare fused gadoxetate-enhanced Ga-68-DOTANOC PET/MRI and Ga-68-DOTANOC PET/DWI (diffusion-weighted imaging) for the assessment of abdominal neuroendocrine tumours (NETs). METHODS: Eighteen patients with suspected or histologically proven NETs of the abdomen were enrolled in this retrospective study. All patients underwent Ga-68-DOTANOC PET/CT for a primary search, staging, or restaging, and received an additional MRI, including dynamic gadoxetate-enhanced T1-weighted sequences and DWI (b-values 50, 300 and 600). Co-registered gadoxetate-enhanced PET/MRI and PET/DWI were separately analysed for NET lesions by a nuclear medicine physician and a radiologist in consensus. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated on a per-region, per-organ and per-patient basis. RESULTS: Eighty-seven out of 684 anatomical regions, and 23 out of 270 organs, were NET-positive in 14 out of 18 patients. Region-based sensitivities and specificities were 97.7 % and 99.7 % for gadoxetate-enhanced PET/MRI and 98.9 % and 99.7 % for PET/DWI. Organ-based sensitivities and specificities were 91.3 % and 99.6 % for gadoxetate-enhanced PET/MRI and 95.7 % and 99.6 % for PET/DWI. Finally, patient-based sensitivities and specificities were 100 % and 100 % for gadoxetate-enhanced PET/MRI and 100 % and 75 % for PET/DWI. Sensitivities and specificities of the two methods did not differ significantly. CONCLUSIONS:Gadoxetate-enhanced Ga-68-DOTANOC PET/MRI and Ga-68-DOTANOC PET/DWI are equally useful for the assessment of abdominal NETs. KEY POINTS: • Positron emission tomography and magnetic resonance imaging can both assess neuroendocrine tumours. • Fusion of PET/MR imaging provides helpful information. • Gadoxetate-enhanced Ga-68-DOTANOC PET/MRI and Ga-68-DOTANOC PET/DWI assess neuroendocrine tumours equally well. • PET/DWI is inherently simpler than gadoxetate-enhanced PET/MRI. • Only benign hepatic lesions pose a potential diagnostic dilemma for PET/DWI.
Authors: Christoph J Zech; Karin A Herrmann; Olaf Dietrich; Wilhelm Horger; Maximilian F Reiser; Stefan O Schoenberg Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2008-04 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: F L Giesel; C Kratochwil; A Mehndiratta; S Wulfert; J H Moltz; C M Zechmann; H U Kauczor; U Haberkorn; S Ley Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2012-01-10 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Tejas Parikh; Stephen J Drew; Vivian S Lee; Samson Wong; Elizabeth M Hecht; James S Babb; Bachir Taouli Journal: Radiology Date: 2008-01-25 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Guido M Kukuk; Petra Mürtz; Frank Träber; Carsten Meyer; Jan Ullrich; Jürgen Gieseke; Hojjat Ahmadzadehfar; Samer Ezziddin; Hans H Schild; Winfried A Willinek Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2013-10-01 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Ali Pirasteh; Christopher Riedl; Marius Erik Mayerhoefer; Romina Grazia Giancipoli; Steven Mark Larson; Lisa Bodei Journal: Clin Transl Imaging Date: 2019-09-20
Authors: Dominik Berzaczy; Chiara Giraudo; Alexander R Haug; Markus Raderer; Daniela Senn; Georgios Karanikas; Michael Weber; Marius E Mayerhoefer Journal: Clin Nucl Med Date: 2017-09 Impact factor: 7.794