PURPOSE: To compare the accuracy of PET/MR imaging with that of FDG PET/CT and to determine the MR sequences necessary for the detection of liver metastasis using a trimodality PET/CT/MR set-up. METHODS: Included in this single-centre IRB-approved study were 55 patients (22 women, age 61 ± 11 years) with suspected liver metastases from gastrointestinal cancer. Imaging using a trimodality PET/CT/MR set-up (time-of-flight PET/CT and 3-T whole-body MR imager) comprised PET, low-dose CT, contrast-enhanced (CE) CT of the abdomen, and MR with T1-W/T2-W, diffusion-weighted (DWI), and dynamic CE imaging. Two readers evaluated the following image sets for liver metastasis: PET/CT (set A), PET/CECT (B), PET/MR including T1-W/T2-W (C), T1-W/T2-W with either DWI (D) or CE imaging (E), and a combination (F). The accuracy of each image set was determined by receiver-operating characteristic analysis using image set B as the standard of reference. RESULTS: Of 120 liver lesions in 21/55 patients (38%), 79 (66%) were considered malignant, and 63/79 (80%) showed abnormal FDG uptake. Accuracies were 0.937 (95% CI 89.5 - 97.9%) for image set A, 1.00 (95% CI 99.9 - 100.0%) for set C, 0.998 (95% CI 99.4 - 100.0%) for set D, 0.997 (95% CI 99.3 - 100.0%) for set E, and 0.995 (95% CI 99.0 - 100.0%) for set F. Differences were significant for image sets D - F (P < 0.05) when including lesions without abnormal FDG uptake. As shown by follow-up imaging after 50 - 177 days, the use of image sets D and both sets E and F led to the detection of metastases in one and three patients, respectively, and further metastases in the contralateral lobe in two patients negative on PET/CECT (P = 0.06). CONCLUSION: PET/MR imaging with T1-W/T2-W sequences results in similar diagnostic accuracy for the detection of liver metastases to PET/CECT. To significantly improve the characterization of liver lesions, we recommend the use of dynamic CE imaging sequences. PET/MR imaging has a diagnostic impact on clinical decision making.
PURPOSE: To compare the accuracy of PET/MR imaging with that of FDG PET/CT and to determine the MR sequences necessary for the detection of liver metastasis using a trimodality PET/CT/MR set-up. METHODS: Included in this single-centre IRB-approved study were 55 patients (22 women, age 61 ± 11 years) with suspected liver metastases from gastrointestinal cancer. Imaging using a trimodality PET/CT/MR set-up (time-of-flight PET/CT and 3-T whole-body MR imager) comprised PET, low-dose CT, contrast-enhanced (CE) CT of the abdomen, and MR with T1-W/T2-W, diffusion-weighted (DWI), and dynamic CE imaging. Two readers evaluated the following image sets for liver metastasis: PET/CT (set A), PET/CECT (B), PET/MR including T1-W/T2-W (C), T1-W/T2-W with either DWI (D) or CE imaging (E), and a combination (F). The accuracy of each image set was determined by receiver-operating characteristic analysis using image set B as the standard of reference. RESULTS: Of 120 liver lesions in 21/55 patients (38%), 79 (66%) were considered malignant, and 63/79 (80%) showed abnormal FDG uptake. Accuracies were 0.937 (95% CI 89.5 - 97.9%) for image set A, 1.00 (95% CI 99.9 - 100.0%) for set C, 0.998 (95% CI 99.4 - 100.0%) for set D, 0.997 (95% CI 99.3 - 100.0%) for set E, and 0.995 (95% CI 99.0 - 100.0%) for set F. Differences were significant for image sets D - F (P < 0.05) when including lesions without abnormal FDG uptake. As shown by follow-up imaging after 50 - 177 days, the use of image sets D and both sets E and F led to the detection of metastases in one and three patients, respectively, and further metastases in the contralateral lobe in two patients negative on PET/CECT (P = 0.06). CONCLUSION: PET/MR imaging with T1-W/T2-W sequences results in similar diagnostic accuracy for the detection of liver metastases to PET/CECT. To significantly improve the characterization of liver lesions, we recommend the use of dynamic CE imaging sequences. PET/MR imaging has a diagnostic impact on clinical decision making.
Authors: Axel Martinez-Möller; Matthias Eiber; Stephan G Nekolla; Michael Souvatzoglou; Alexander Drzezga; Sibylle Ziegler; Ernst J Rummeny; Markus Schwaiger; Ambros J Beer Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2012-08-09 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Ciprian Catana; Andre van der Kouwe; Thomas Benner; Christian J Michel; Michael Hamm; Matthias Fenchel; Bruce Fischl; Bruce Rosen; Matthias Schmand; A Gregory Sorensen Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Andrew D Hardie; Mohit Naik; Elizabeth M Hecht; Hersh Chandarana; Lorenzo Mannelli; James S Babb; Bachir Taouli Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2010-02-11 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Matthias Eiber; Axel Martinez-Möller; Michael Souvatzoglou; Konstantin Holzapfel; Anja Pickhard; Dennys Löffelbein; Ivan Santi; Ernst J Rummeny; Sibylle Ziegler; Markus Schwaiger; Stephan G Nekolla; Ambros J Beer Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2011-06-18 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Shandra Bipat; Maarten S van Leeuwen; Emile F I Comans; Milan E J Pijl; Patrick M M Bossuyt; Aeilko H Zwinderman; Jaap Stoker Journal: Radiology Date: 2005-08-11 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Albert Dirisamer; Benjamin S Halpern; Wolfgang Schima; Martin Heinisch; Florian Wolf; Mohsen Beheshti; Franz Dirisamer; Michael Weber; Werner Langsteger Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2008-08-16 Impact factor: 3.488
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: Julian Kirchner; Cornelius Deuschl; Johannes Grueneisen; Ken Herrmann; Michael Forsting; Philipp Heusch; Gerald Antoch; Lale Umutlu Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2017-02-04 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: R Chowdhury; B Ganeshan; S Irshad; K Lawler; M Eisenblätter; H Milewicz; M Rodriguez-Justo; K Miles; P Ellis; A Groves; S Punwani; T Ng Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2014-03-06 Impact factor: 3.039