OBJECTIVES: Evaluate the performance of PET/MRI at tissue interfaces with different attenuation values for detecting lymph node (LN) metastases and for accurately measuring maximum standardised uptake values (SUVmax) in lung cancer patients. MATERIALS AND METHOD: Eleven patients underwent PET/CT and PET/MRI for staging, restaging or follow-up of suspected or known lung cancer. Four experienced readers determined the N stage of the patients for each imaging method in a randomised blinded way. Concerning metastases, SUVmax of FDG-avid LNs were measured in PET/CT and PET/MRI in all patients. A standard of reference was created with a fifth experienced independent reader in combination with a chart review. Results were analysed to determine interobserver agreement, SUVmax correlation between CT and MRI (three-segment model) attenuation correction and diagnostic performance of the two techniques. RESULTS: Overall interobserver agreement was high (κ = 0.86) for PET/CT and substantial (κ = 0.70) for PET/MRI. SUVmax showed strong positive correlation (Spearman's correlation coefficient = 0.93, P < 0.001) between the two techniques. Diagnostic performance of PET/MRI was slightly inferior to that of PET/CT, without statistical significance (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: PET/MRI using three-segment model attenuation correction for LN staging in lung cancer shows a strong parallel to PET/CT in terms of SUVmax, interobserver agreement and diagnostic performance. KEY POINTS: •F18-FDG PET/MRI shows similar performance to F18-FDG PET/CT in lung cancer N staging. •PET/MRI has substantial interobserver agreement in N staging. •A three-segment model attenuation correction is reliable for assessing the mediastinum.
OBJECTIVES: Evaluate the performance of PET/MRI at tissue interfaces with different attenuation values for detecting lymph node (LN) metastases and for accurately measuring maximum standardised uptake values (SUVmax) in lung cancerpatients. MATERIALS AND METHOD: Eleven patients underwent PET/CT and PET/MRI for staging, restaging or follow-up of suspected or known lung cancer. Four experienced readers determined the N stage of the patients for each imaging method in a randomised blinded way. Concerning metastases, SUVmax of FDG-avid LNs were measured in PET/CT and PET/MRI in all patients. A standard of reference was created with a fifth experienced independent reader in combination with a chart review. Results were analysed to determine interobserver agreement, SUVmax correlation between CT and MRI (three-segment model) attenuation correction and diagnostic performance of the two techniques. RESULTS: Overall interobserver agreement was high (κ = 0.86) for PET/CT and substantial (κ = 0.70) for PET/MRI. SUVmax showed strong positive correlation (Spearman's correlation coefficient = 0.93, P < 0.001) between the two techniques. Diagnostic performance of PET/MRI was slightly inferior to that of PET/CT, without statistical significance (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: PET/MRI using three-segment model attenuation correction for LN staging in lung cancer shows a strong parallel to PET/CT in terms of SUVmax, interobserver agreement and diagnostic performance. KEY POINTS: •F18-FDG PET/MRI shows similar performance to F18-FDG PET/CT in lung cancer N staging. •PET/MRI has substantial interobserver agreement in N staging. •A three-segment model attenuation correction is reliable for assessing the mediastinum.
Authors: Marco Wiesmüller; Harald H Quick; Bharath Navalpakkam; Michael M Lell; Michael Uder; Philipp Ritt; Daniela Schmidt; Michael Beck; Torsten Kuwert; Carl C von Gall Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2012-10-06 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Georg Schramm; Jens Langner; Frank Hofheinz; Jan Petr; Bettina Beuthien-Baumann; Ivan Platzek; Jörg Steinbach; Jörg Kotzerke; Jörg van den Hoff Journal: MAGMA Date: 2012-08-26 Impact factor: 2.310
Authors: Philipp Heusch; Christian Buchbender; Karsten Beiderwellen; Felix Nensa; Verena Hartung-Knemeyer; Thomas C Lauenstein; Andreas Bockisch; Michael Forsting; Gerald Antoch; Till A Heusner Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2013-02-08 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Paul De Leyn; Didier Lardinois; Paul E Van Schil; Ramon Rami-Porta; Bernward Passlick; Marcin Zielinski; David A Waller; Tony Lerut; Walter Weder Journal: Eur J Cardiothorac Surg Date: 2007-04-19 Impact factor: 4.191
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: Kyung Hee Lee; Chang Min Park; Sang Min Lee; Jeong Min Lee; Jeong Yeon Cho; Jin Chul Paeng; Su Yeon Ahn; Jin Mo Goo Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-06-11 Impact factor: 3.240