OBJECTIVE: To compare whole-body MRI, including diffusion-weighted imaging (whole-body MRI-DWI), with FDG-PET/CT for staging newly diagnosed paediatric lymphoma. METHODS: A total of 36 children with newly diagnosed lymphoma prospectively underwent both whole-body MRI-DWI and FDG-PET/CT. Whole-body MRI-DWI was successfully performed in 33 patients (mean age 13.9 years). Whole-body MRI-DWI was independently evaluated by two blinded observers. After consensus reading, an unblinded expert panel evaluated the discrepant findings between whole-body MRI-DWI and FDG-PET/CT and used bone marrow biopsy, other imaging data and clinical information to derive an FDG-PET/CT-based reference standard. RESULTS: Interobserver agreement of whole-body MRI-DWI was good [all nodal sites together (κ = 0.79); all extranodal sites together (κ = 0.69)]. There was very good agreement between the consensus whole-body MRI-DWI- and FDG-PET/CT-based reference standard for nodal (κ = 0.91) and extranodal (κ = 0.94) staging. The sensitivity and specificity of consensus whole-body MRI-DWI were 93 % and 98 % for nodal staging and 89 % and 100 % for extranodal staging, respectively. Following removal of MRI reader errors, the disease stage according to whole-body MRI-DWI agreed with the reference standard in 28 of 33 patients. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that whole-body MRI-DWI is feasible for staging paediatric lymphoma and could potentially serve as a good radiation-free alternative to FDG-PET/CT. KEYPOINTS: • Accurate staging is important for treatment planning and assessing prognosis • Whole-body MRI-DWI could be a good radiation-free alternative to FDG-PET/CT • Interobserver agreement of whole-body MRI-DWI is good • Agreement between whole-body MRI and the FDG-PET/CT reference standard is good • Most discrepancies were caused by suboptimal accuracy of size measurements on MRI.
OBJECTIVE: To compare whole-body MRI, including diffusion-weighted imaging (whole-body MRI-DWI), with FDG-PET/CT for staging newly diagnosed paediatric lymphoma. METHODS: A total of 36 children with newly diagnosed lymphoma prospectively underwent both whole-body MRI-DWI and FDG-PET/CT. Whole-body MRI-DWI was successfully performed in 33 patients (mean age 13.9 years). Whole-body MRI-DWI was independently evaluated by two blinded observers. After consensus reading, an unblinded expert panel evaluated the discrepant findings between whole-body MRI-DWI and FDG-PET/CT and used bone marrow biopsy, other imaging data and clinical information to derive an FDG-PET/CT-based reference standard. RESULTS: Interobserver agreement of whole-body MRI-DWI was good [all nodal sites together (κ = 0.79); all extranodal sites together (κ = 0.69)]. There was very good agreement between the consensus whole-body MRI-DWI- and FDG-PET/CT-based reference standard for nodal (κ = 0.91) and extranodal (κ = 0.94) staging. The sensitivity and specificity of consensus whole-body MRI-DWI were 93 % and 98 % for nodal staging and 89 % and 100 % for extranodal staging, respectively. Following removal of MRI reader errors, the disease stage according to whole-body MRI-DWI agreed with the reference standard in 28 of 33 patients. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that whole-body MRI-DWI is feasible for staging paediatric lymphoma and could potentially serve as a good radiation-free alternative to FDG-PET/CT. KEYPOINTS: • Accurate staging is important for treatment planning and assessing prognosis • Whole-body MRI-DWI could be a good radiation-free alternative to FDG-PET/CT • Interobserver agreement of whole-body MRI-DWI is good • Agreement between whole-body MRI and the FDG-PET/CT reference standard is good • Most discrepancies were caused by suboptimal accuracy of size measurements on MRI.
Authors: Henriëtte M E Quarles van Ufford; Thomas C Kwee; Frederik J Beek; Maarten S van Leeuwen; Taro Takahara; Rob Fijnheer; Rutger A J Nievelstein; John M H de Klerk Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2011-03 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Tarec Christoffer El-Galaly; Francesco d'Amore; Karen Juul Mylam; Peter de Nully Brown; Martin Bøgsted; Anne Bukh; Lena Specht; Annika Loft; Victor Iyer; Karin Hjorthaug; Anne Lerberg Nielsen; Ilse Christiansen; Charlotte Madsen; Hans-Erik Johnsen; Martin Hutchings Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-11-13 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Shonit Punwani; Stuart A Taylor; Ziauddin Z Saad; Alan Bainbridge; Ashley Groves; Stephen Daw; Ananth Shankar; Steve Halligan; Paul D Humphries Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2012-11-30 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: R A J Nievelstein; H M E Quarles van Ufford; T C Kwee; M B Bierings; I Ludwig; F J A Beek; J M H de Klerk; W P Th M Mali; P W de Bruin; J Geleijns Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2012-04-27 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Brian S Pugmire; Alexander R Guimaraes; Ruth Lim; Alison M Friedmann; Mary Huang; David Ebb; Howard Weinstein; Onofrio A Catalano; Umar Mahmood; Ciprian Catana; Michael S Gee Journal: World J Radiol Date: 2016-03-28
Authors: Lucy A Fowkes; Dow-Mu Koh; David J Collins; Neil P Jerome; David MacVicar; Sue C Chua; Andrew D J Pearson Journal: Pediatr Radiol Date: 2015-06-05