PURPOSE: To assess diagnostic sensitivity of radial T1-weighted gradient-echo (radial volumetric interpolated breath-hold examination [VIBE]) magnetic resonance (MR) imaging, positron emission tomography (PET), and combined simultaneous PET and MR imaging with an integrated PET/MR system in the detection of lung nodules, with combined PET and computed tomography (CT) as a reference. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this institutional review board-approved HIPAA-compliant prospective study, 32 patients with tumors who underwent clinically warranted fluorine 18 ((18)F) fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET/CT followed by PET/MR imaging were included. In all patients, the thorax station was examined with free-breathing radial VIBE MR imaging and simultaneously acquired PET data. Presence and size of nodules and FDG avidity were assessed on PET/CT, radial VIBE, PET, and PET/MR images. Percentage of nodules detected on radial VIBE and PET images was compared with that on PET/MR images by using generalized estimating equations. Maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) in pulmonary nodules with a diameter of at least 1 cm was compared between PET/CT and PET/MR imaging with Pearson rank correlation. RESULTS: A total of 69 nodules, including 45 FDG-avid nodules, were detected with PET/CT. The sensitivity of PET/MR imaging was 70.3% for all nodules, 95.6% for FDG-avid nodules, and 88.6% for nodules 0.5 cm in diameter or larger. PET/MR imaging had higher sensitivity than PET for all nodules (70.3% vs 61.6%, P = .002) and higher sensitivity than MR imaging for FDG-avid nodules (95.6% vs 80.0%, P = .008). There was a significantly strong correlation between SUVmax of pulmonary nodules obtained with PET/CT and that obtained with PET/MR imaging (r = 0.96, P < .001). CONCLUSION: Radial VIBE and PET data acquired simultaneously with PET/MR imaging have high sensitivity in the detection of FDG-avid nodules and nodules 0.5 cm in diameter or larger, with low sensitivity for small non-FDG-avid nodules.
PURPOSE: To assess diagnostic sensitivity of radial T1-weighted gradient-echo (radial volumetric interpolated breath-hold examination [VIBE]) magnetic resonance (MR) imaging, positron emission tomography (PET), and combined simultaneous PET and MR imaging with an integrated PET/MR system in the detection of lung nodules, with combined PET and computed tomography (CT) as a reference. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this institutional review board-approved HIPAA-compliant prospective study, 32 patients with tumors who underwent clinically warranted fluorine 18 ((18)F) fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET/CT followed by PET/MR imaging were included. In all patients, the thorax station was examined with free-breathing radial VIBE MR imaging and simultaneously acquired PET data. Presence and size of nodules and FDG avidity were assessed on PET/CT, radial VIBE, PET, and PET/MR images. Percentage of nodules detected on radial VIBE and PET images was compared with that on PET/MR images by using generalized estimating equations. Maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) in pulmonary nodules with a diameter of at least 1 cm was compared between PET/CT and PET/MR imaging with Pearson rank correlation. RESULTS: A total of 69 nodules, including 45 FDG-avid nodules, were detected with PET/CT. The sensitivity of PET/MR imaging was 70.3% for all nodules, 95.6% for FDG-avid nodules, and 88.6% for nodules 0.5 cm in diameter or larger. PET/MR imaging had higher sensitivity than PET for all nodules (70.3% vs 61.6%, P = .002) and higher sensitivity than MR imaging for FDG-avid nodules (95.6% vs 80.0%, P = .008). There was a significantly strong correlation between SUVmax of pulmonary nodules obtained with PET/CT and that obtained with PET/MR imaging (r = 0.96, P < .001). CONCLUSION: Radial VIBE and PET data acquired simultaneously with PET/MR imaging have high sensitivity in the detection of FDG-avid nodules and nodules 0.5 cm in diameter or larger, with low sensitivity for small non-FDG-avid nodules.
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
Authors: Jakob Weiss; Jana Taron; Ahmed E Othman; Robert Grimm; Matthias Kuendel; Petros Martirosian; Christer Ruff; Christina Schraml; Konstantin Nikolaou; Mike Notohamiprodjo Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2016-06-08 Impact factor: 5.315
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
Authors: Mohammad H Bagheri; Mark A Ahlman; Liza Lindenberg; Baris Turkbey; Jeffrey Lin; Ali Cahid Civelek; Ashkan A Malayeri; Piyush K Agarwal; Peter L Choyke; Les R Folio; Andrea B Apolo Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2017-05-12 Impact factor: 3.498
Authors: Pierpaolo Biondetti; Mark G Vangel; Rita M Lahoud; Felipe S Furtado; Bruce R Rosen; David Groshar; Lina G Canamaque; Lale Umutlu; Eric W Zhang; Umar Mahmood; Subba R Digumarthy; Jo-Anne O Shepard; Onofrio A Catalano Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2021-01-07 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Kent Friedman; Hersh Chandarana; Amy Melsaether; Linda Moy; Yu-Shin Ding; Komal Jhaveri; Luis Beltran; Rajan Jain Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2015-10-22 Impact factor: 3.959