PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the positron emission tomography (PET) component of [(18)F]choline PET/MRI and compare it with the PET component of [(18)F]choline PET/CT in patients with histologically proven prostate cancer and suspected recurrent prostate cancer. METHODS: Thirty-six patients were examined with simultaneous [(18)F]choline PET/MRI following combined [(18)F]choline PET/CT. Fifty-eight PET-positive lesions in PET/CT and PET/MRI were evaluated by measuring the maximum and mean standardized uptake values (SUVmax and SUVmean) using volume of interest (VOI) analysis. A scoring system was applied to determine the quality of the PET images of both PET/CT and PET/MRI. Agreement between PET/CT and PET/MRI regarding SUVmax and SUVmean was tested using Pearson's product-moment correlation and Bland-Altman analysis. RESULTS: All PET-positive lesions that were visible on PET/CT were also detectable on PET/MRI. The quality of the PET images was comparable in both groups. Median SUVmax and SUVmean of all lesions were significantly lower in PET/MRI than in PET/CT (5.2 vs 6.1, p<0.05 and 2.0 vs 2.6, p<0.001, respectively). Pearson's product-moment correlation indicated highly significant correlations between SUVmax of PET/CT and PET/MRI (R=0.86, p<0.001) as well as between SUVmean of PET/CT and PET/MRI (R=0.81, p<0.001). Bland-Altman analysis revealed lower and upper limits of agreement of -2.77 to 3.64 between SUVmax of PET/CT vs PET/MRI and -1.12 to +2.23 between SUVmean of PET/CT vs PET/MRI. CONCLUSION: PET image quality of PET/MRI was comparable to that of PET/CT. A highly significant correlation between SUVmax and SUVmean was found. Both SUVmax and SUVmean were significantly lower in [(18)F]choline PET/MRI than in [(18)F]choline PET/CT. Differences of SUVmax and SUVmean might be caused by different techniques of attenuation correction. Furthermore, differences in biodistribution and biokinetics of [(18)F]choline between the subsequent examinations and in the respective organ systems have to be taken into account.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the positron emission tomography (PET) component of [(18)F]choline PET/MRI and compare it with the PET component of [(18)F]choline PET/CT in patients with histologically proven prostate cancer and suspected recurrent prostate cancer. METHODS: Thirty-six patients were examined with simultaneous [(18)F]choline PET/MRI following combined [(18)F]choline PET/CT. Fifty-eight PET-positive lesions in PET/CT and PET/MRI were evaluated by measuring the maximum and mean standardized uptake values (SUVmax and SUVmean) using volume of interest (VOI) analysis. A scoring system was applied to determine the quality of the PET images of both PET/CT and PET/MRI. Agreement between PET/CT and PET/MRI regarding SUVmax and SUVmean was tested using Pearson's product-moment correlation and Bland-Altman analysis. RESULTS: All PET-positive lesions that were visible on PET/CT were also detectable on PET/MRI. The quality of the PET images was comparable in both groups. Median SUVmax and SUVmean of all lesions were significantly lower in PET/MRI than in PET/CT (5.2 vs 6.1, p<0.05 and 2.0 vs 2.6, p<0.001, respectively). Pearson's product-moment correlation indicated highly significant correlations between SUVmax of PET/CT and PET/MRI (R=0.86, p<0.001) as well as between SUVmean of PET/CT and PET/MRI (R=0.81, p<0.001). Bland-Altman analysis revealed lower and upper limits of agreement of -2.77 to 3.64 between SUVmax of PET/CT vs PET/MRI and -1.12 to +2.23 between SUVmean of PET/CT vs PET/MRI. CONCLUSION: PET image quality of PET/MRI was comparable to that of PET/CT. A highly significant correlation between SUVmax and SUVmean was found. Both SUVmax and SUVmean were significantly lower in [(18)F]choline PET/MRI than in [(18)F]choline PET/CT. Differences of SUVmax and SUVmean might be caused by different techniques of attenuation correction. Furthermore, differences in biodistribution and biokinetics of [(18)F]choline between the subsequent examinations and in the respective organ systems have to be taken into account.
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: 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: Sharif Kershah; Sasan Partovi; Bryan J Traughber; Raymond F Muzic; Mark D Schluchter; James K O'Donnell; Peter Faulhaber Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2013-12 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Augusto Giussani; Tilman Janzen; Helena Uusijärvi-Lizana; Federico Tavola; Maria Zankl; Marie Sydoff; Anders Bjartell; Sigrid Leide-Svegborn; Marcus Söderberg; Sören Mattsson; Christoph Hoeschen; Marie-Claire Cantone Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2012-05-08 Impact factor: 10.057
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
Authors: Francesco Paparo; Alice Peirano; João Matos; Lorenzo Bacigalupo; Umberto Rossi; Ilaria Mussetto; Gianluca Bottoni; Martina Ugolini; Carlo Introini; Filippo Grillo Ruggieri; Gian Andrea Rollandi; Arnoldo Piccardo Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2020-11
Authors: M Picchio; P Mapelli; V Panebianco; P Castellucci; E Incerti; A Briganti; G Gandaglia; M Kirienko; F Barchetti; C Nanni; F Montorsi; L Gianolli; S Fanti Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2015-01-17 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: D L Bailey; G Antoch; P Bartenstein; H Barthel; A J Beer; S Bisdas; D A Bluemke; R Boellaard; C D Claussen; C Franzius; M Hacker; H Hricak; C la Fougère; B Gückel; S G Nekolla; B J Pichler; S Purz; H H Quick; O Sabri; B Sattler; J Schäfer; H Schmidt; J van den Hoff; S Voss; W Weber; H F Wehrl; T Beyer Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2015-06 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Arnoldo Piccardo; Francesco Paparo; Riccardo Piccazzo; Riccardo Picazzo; Mehrdad Naseri; Paolo Ricci; Andrea Marziano; Lorenzo Bacigalupo; Ennio Biscaldi; Gian Andrea Rollandi; Filippo Grillo-Ruggieri; Mohsen Farsad Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2014-04-30 Impact factor: 3.411