PURPOSE: Positron emission tomography (PET)/MRI combines the functional ability of PET and the high soft tissue contrast of MRI. The aim of this study was to assess contrast-enhanced (ce)PET/MRI compared to cePET/CT in patients with suspected recurrence of head and neck cancer (HNC). METHODS: Eighty-seven patients underwent sequential cePET/CT and cePET/MRI using a trimodality PET/CT-MRI set-up. Diagnostic accuracy for the detection of recurrent HNC was evaluated using cePET/CT and cePET/MRI. Furthermore, image quality, presence of unclear (18)F-fluorodeoxy-D-glucose (FDG) findings of uncertain significance and the diagnostic advantages of use of gadolinium contrast enhancement were analysed. RESULTS: cePET/MRI showed no statistically significant difference in diagnostic accuracy compared to cePET/CT (91.5 vs 90.6%). Artefacts' grade was similar in both methods, but their location was different. cePET/CT artefacts were primarily located in the suprahyoid area, while on cePET/MRI, artefacts were more equally distributed among the supra and infrahyoid neck regions. cePET/MRI and cePET/CT showed 34 unclear FDG findings; of those 11 could be solved by cePET/MRI and 5 by cePET/CT. The use of gadolinium in PET/MRI did not yield higher diagnostic accuracy, but helped to better define tumour margins in 6.9% of patients. CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that cePET/MRI may be superior compared to cePET/CT to specify unclear FDG uptake related to possible tumour recurrence in follow-up of patients after HNC. It seems to be the modality of choice for the evaluation of the oropharynx and the oral cavity because of a higher incidence of artefacts in cePET/CT in this area mainly due to dental implants. However, overall there is no statistically significant difference.
PURPOSE: Positron emission tomography (PET)/MRI combines the functional ability of PET and the high soft tissue contrast of MRI. The aim of this study was to assess contrast-enhanced (ce)PET/MRI compared to cePET/CT in patients with suspected recurrence of head and neck cancer (HNC). METHODS: Eighty-seven patients underwent sequential cePET/CT and cePET/MRI using a trimodality PET/CT-MRI set-up. Diagnostic accuracy for the detection of recurrent HNC was evaluated using cePET/CT and cePET/MRI. Furthermore, image quality, presence of unclear (18)F-fluorodeoxy-D-glucose (FDG) findings of uncertain significance and the diagnostic advantages of use of gadolinium contrast enhancement were analysed. RESULTS: cePET/MRI showed no statistically significant difference in diagnostic accuracy compared to cePET/CT (91.5 vs 90.6%). Artefacts' grade was similar in both methods, but their location was different. cePET/CT artefacts were primarily located in the suprahyoid area, while on cePET/MRI, artefacts were more equally distributed among the supra and infrahyoid neck regions. cePET/MRI and cePET/CT showed 34 unclear FDG findings; of those 11 could be solved by cePET/MRI and 5 by cePET/CT. The use of gadolinium in PET/MRI did not yield higher diagnostic accuracy, but helped to better define tumour margins in 6.9% of patients. CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that cePET/MRI may be superior compared to cePET/CT to specify unclear FDG uptake related to possible tumour recurrence in follow-up of patients after HNC. It seems to be the modality of choice for the evaluation of the oropharynx and the oral cavity because of a higher incidence of artefacts in cePET/CT in this area mainly due to dental implants. However, overall there is no statistically significant difference.
Authors: Patrick Veit-Haibach; Felix Pierre Kuhn; Florian Wiesinger; Gaspar Delso; Gustav von Schulthess Journal: MAGMA Date: 2012-10-09 Impact factor: 2.310
Authors: V A Passero; B F Branstetter; Y Shuai; D E Heron; M K Gibson; S Y Lai; S W Kim; J R Grandis; R L Ferris; J T Johnson; A Argiris Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2010-04-29 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Thomas Pfluger; Henriette I Melzer; Wolfgang P Mueller; Eva Coppenrath; Peter Bartenstein; Michael H Albert; Irene Schmid Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2012-08-28 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Balasubramanya Rangaswamy; M Reza Fardanesh; Eric M Genden; Eunice E Park; Girish Fatterpekar; Zara Patel; Jongho Kim; Peter M Som; Lale Kostakoglu Journal: Laryngoscope Date: 2013-04-01 Impact factor: 3.325
Authors: F H J Elsholtz; S-R Ro; S Shnayien; C Erxleben; H-C Bauknecht; J Lenk; L-A Schaafs; B Hamm; S M Niehues Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2020-04-23 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Alexis Vrachimis; Lars Stegger; Christian Wenning; Benjamin Noto; Matthias Christian Burg; Julia Renate Konnert; Thomas Allkemper; Walter Heindel; Burkhard Riemann; Michael Schäfers; Matthias Weckesser Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2016-04-08 Impact factor: 9.236
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
Authors: Marcelo A Queiroz; Martin Hüllner; Felix Kuhn; Gerhardt Huber; Christian Meerwein; Spyros Kollias; Gustav von Schulthess; Patrick Veit-Haibach Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2014-08-05 Impact factor: 9.236