PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic capability of simultaneous (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET)/MRI compared to (18)F-FDG PET/CT as well as their single components in head and neck cancer patients. METHODS: In a prospective study 17 patients underwent (18)F-FDG PET/CT for staging or follow-up and an additional (18)F-FDG PET/MRI scan with whole-body imaging and dedicated examination of the neck. MRI, CT and PET images as well as PET/MRI and PET/CT examinations were evaluated independently and in a blinded fashion by two reader groups. Results were compared with the reference standard (final diagnosis determined in consensus using all available data including histology and follow-up). Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 23 malignant tumours were found with the reference standard. PET/CT showed a sensitivity of 82.7%, a specificity of 87.3%, a PPV of 73.2% and a NPV of 92.4%. Corresponding values for PET/MRI were 80.5, 88.2, 75.6 and 92.5%. No statistically significant difference in diagnostic capability could be found between PET/CT and PET/MRI. Evaluation of the PET part from PET/CT revealed highest sensitivity of 95.7%, and MRI showed best specificity of 96.4%. There was a high inter-rater agreement in all modalities (Cohen's kappa 0.61-0.82). CONCLUSION: PET/MRI of patients with head and neck cancer yielded good diagnostic capability, similar to PET/CT. Further studies on larger cohorts to prove these first results seem justified.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic capability of simultaneous (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET)/MRI compared to (18)F-FDG PET/CT as well as their single components in head and neck cancerpatients. METHODS: In a prospective study 17 patients underwent (18)F-FDG PET/CT for staging or follow-up and an additional (18)F-FDG PET/MRI scan with whole-body imaging and dedicated examination of the neck. MRI, CT and PET images as well as PET/MRI and PET/CT examinations were evaluated independently and in a blinded fashion by two reader groups. Results were compared with the reference standard (final diagnosis determined in consensus using all available data including histology and follow-up). Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 23 malignant tumours were found with the reference standard. PET/CT showed a sensitivity of 82.7%, a specificity of 87.3%, a PPV of 73.2% and a NPV of 92.4%. Corresponding values for PET/MRI were 80.5, 88.2, 75.6 and 92.5%. No statistically significant difference in diagnostic capability could be found between PET/CT and PET/MRI. Evaluation of the PET part from PET/CT revealed highest sensitivity of 95.7%, and MRI showed best specificity of 96.4%. There was a high inter-rater agreement in all modalities (Cohen's kappa 0.61-0.82). CONCLUSION: PET/MRI of patients with head and neck cancer yielded good diagnostic capability, similar to PET/CT. Further studies on larger cohorts to prove these first results seem justified.
Authors: Till-Alexander Heusner; Sherko Kuemmel; Angela Koeninger; Monia E Hamami; Steffen Hahn; Anton Quinsten; Andreas Bockisch; Michael Forsting; Thomas Lauenstein; Gerald Antoch; Alexander Stahl Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2010-03-04 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Thomas Guenzel; Achim Franzen; Susanne Wiegand; Sabine Kraetschmer; Johann Ludwig Jahn; Robert Mironczuk; Thomas Wilhelm; Thomas Schrom Journal: Anticancer Res Date: 2013-03 Impact factor: 2.480
Authors: Dae Young Yoon; Hee Sung Hwang; Suk Ki Chang; Young-Soo Rho; Hwoe Young Ahn; Jin Hwan Kim; In Jae Lee Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2008-10-09 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: R B J de Bondt; P J Nelemans; F Bakers; J W Casselman; C Peutz-Kootstra; B Kremer; P A M Hofman; R G H Beets-Tan Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2008-10-07 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: David Slouka; Jiri Krcal; Tomas Kostlivy; Petr Hrabacka; Alena Skalova; Hynek Mirka; Ondrej Topolcan; Radek Kucera Journal: In Vivo Date: 2020 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 2.155
Authors: J H Rasmussen; B M Fischer; M C Aznar; A E Hansen; I R Vogelius; J Löfgren; F L Andersen; A Loft; A Kjaer; L Højgaard; L Specht Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2015-01-30 Impact factor: 3.039