OBJECTIVES: To compare [(18)F]FDG PET/MRI with PET/CT for the assessment of bone lesions in oncologic patients. METHODS: This prospective study included 67 patients with solid tumours scheduled for PET/CT with [(18)F]FDG who also underwent a whole-body PET/MRI scan. The datasets (PET/CT, PET/MRI) were rated by two readers regarding lesion conspicuity (four-point scale) and diagnostic confidence (five-point scale). Median scores were compared using the Wilcoxon test. RESULTS: Bone metastases were present in ten patients (15%), and benign bone lesions in 15 patients (22%). Bone metastases were predominantly localized in the pelvis (18 lesions, 38%) and the spine (14 lesions, 29%). Benign bone lesions were exclusively osteosclerotic and smaller than the metastases (mean size 6 mm vs. 23 mm). While PET/CT allowed identification of 45 of 48 bone metastases (94%), PET/MRI allowed identification of all bone metastases (100%). Conspicuity of metastases was high for both modalities with significantly better results using PET/MRI (p < 0.05). Diagnostic confidence in lesion detection was high for both modalities without a significant difference. In benign lesions, conspicuity and diagnostic confidence were significantly higher with PET/CT (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: [(18)F]FDG PET/MRI shows high potential for the assessment of bone metastases by offering superior lesion conspicuity when compared to PET/CT. In hypersclerotic, benign bone lesions PET/CT still sets the reference. KEY POINTS: • PET/MRI and PET/CT are of equal value for the identification of disease-positive patients • PET/MRI offers higher lesion conspicuity as well as diagnostic confidence • PET/MRI is an attractive new alternative for the assessment of bone metastases.
OBJECTIVES: To compare [(18)F]FDG PET/MRI with PET/CT for the assessment of bone lesions in oncologic patients. METHODS: This prospective study included 67 patients with solid tumours scheduled for PET/CT with [(18)F]FDG who also underwent a whole-body PET/MRI scan. The datasets (PET/CT, PET/MRI) were rated by two readers regarding lesion conspicuity (four-point scale) and diagnostic confidence (five-point scale). Median scores were compared using the Wilcoxon test. RESULTS:Bone metastases were present in ten patients (15%), and benign bone lesions in 15 patients (22%). Bone metastases were predominantly localized in the pelvis (18 lesions, 38%) and the spine (14 lesions, 29%). Benign bone lesions were exclusively osteosclerotic and smaller than the metastases (mean size 6 mm vs. 23 mm). While PET/CT allowed identification of 45 of 48 bone metastases (94%), PET/MRI allowed identification of all bone metastases (100%). Conspicuity of metastases was high for both modalities with significantly better results using PET/MRI (p < 0.05). Diagnostic confidence in lesion detection was high for both modalities without a significant difference. In benign lesions, conspicuity and diagnostic confidence were significantly higher with PET/CT (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: [(18)F]FDG PET/MRI shows high potential for the assessment of bone metastases by offering superior lesion conspicuity when compared to PET/CT. In hypersclerotic, benign bone lesions PET/CT still sets the reference. KEY POINTS: • PET/MRI and PET/CT are of equal value for the identification of disease-positive patients • PET/MRI offers higher lesion conspicuity as well as diagnostic confidence • PET/MRI is an attractive new alternative for the assessment of bone metastases.
Authors: Axel Wetter; Christine Lipponer; Felix Nensa; Karsten Beiderwellen; Tobias Olbricht; Herbert Rübben; Andreas Bockisch; Thomas Schlosser; Till A Heusner; Thomas C Lauenstein Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2013-05 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Gerwin P Schmidt; Stefan O Schoenberg; Rupert Schmid; Robert Stahl; Reinhold Tiling; Christoph R Becker; Maximilian F Reiser; Andrea Baur-Melnyk Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2006-09-02 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Axel Martinez-Möller; Michael Souvatzoglou; Gaspar Delso; Ralph A Bundschuh; Christophe Chefd'hotel; Sibylle I Ziegler; Nassir Navab; Markus Schwaiger; Stephan G Nekolla Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2009-03-16 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Thomas C Lauenstein; Lutz S Freudenberg; Susanne C Goehde; Stefan G Ruehm; Mathias Goyen; Silke Bosk; Jörg F Debatin; Jörg Barkhausen Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2002-03-08 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Gerald Antoch; Florian M Vogt; Lutz S Freudenberg; Fridun Nazaradeh; Susanne C Goehde; Jörg Barkhausen; Gerlinde Dahmen; Andreas Bockisch; Jörg F Debatin; Stefan G Ruehm Journal: JAMA Date: 2003-12-24 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Lino M Sawicki; Cornelius Deuschl; Karsten Beiderwellen; Verena Ruhlmann; Thorsten D Poeppel; Philipp Heusch; Harald Lahner; Dagmar Führer; Andreas Bockisch; Ken Herrmann; Michael Forsting; Gerald Antoch; Lale Umutlu Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2017-04-24 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Ali Batouli; John Braun; Kamal Singh; Ali Gholamrezanezhad; Bethany U Casagranda; Abass Alavi Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2018-02-26 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Lino M Sawicki; Julian Kirchner; Carolin Buddensieck; Christina Antke; Tim Ullrich; Lars Schimmöller; Johannes Boos; Christoph Schleich; Benedikt M Schaarschmidt; Christian Buchbender; Philipp Heusch; Robert Rabenalt; Peter Albers; Gerald Antoch; Hans-Wilhelm Müller; Hubertus Hautzel Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2019-03-16 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Benedikt M Schaarschmidt; Johannes Grueneisen; Martin Metzenmacher; Benedikt Gomez; Thomas Gauler; Christian Roesel; Philipp Heusch; Verena Ruhlmann; Lale Umutlu; Gerald Antoch; Christian Buchbender Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2016-05-14 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Amy N Melsaether; Roy A Raad; Akshat C Pujara; Fabio D Ponzo; Kristine M Pysarenko; Komal Jhaveri; James S Babb; Eric E Sigmund; Sungheon G Kim; Linda A Moy Journal: Radiology Date: 2016-03-29 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Akshat C Pujara; Roy A Raad; Fabio Ponzo; Carolyn Wassong; James S Babb; Linda Moy; Amy N Melsaether Journal: Breast J Date: 2016-02-04 Impact factor: 2.431