OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to assess the diagnostic value of integrated positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance imaging (PET/MRI) for whole-body staging of patients with recurrent gynecological pelvic malignancies, in comparison to whole-body MRI alone. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was approved by the local institutional ethics committee. Written informed consent was obtained before each examination. Thirty-four consecutive patients with a suspected recurrence of cervical (n = 18) or ovarian (n = 16) cancer were prospectively enrolled for an integrated PET/MRI examination, which comprised a diagnostic, contrast-enhanced whole-body MRI protocol including dedicated sagittal dynamic imaging of the pelvis. Two radiologists separately evaluated the data sets regarding lesion count, lesion detection, lesion characterization, and diagnostic confidence. Mean and median values were calculated for each rating. Statistical analyses were performed both per-patient and per-lesion bases using a Wilcoxon signed-rank test to indicate potential significant differences among PET/MRI and MRI (alone) data sets. RESULTS: Malignant lesions were present in 25 of the 34 patients. Positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance imaging offered correct and superior identification of all 25 patients with cancer recurrence, compared with MRI alone (23/25). A total of 118 lesions (malignant, 89; benign, 29) were detected. Positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance imaging correctly identified 88 (98.9%) of 89 malignant lesions, whereas MRI alone allowed for correct identification of 79 (88.8%) of the 89 malignant lesions. In addition, PET/MRI provided significantly higher lesion contrast and diagnostic confidence in the detection of malignant lesions (P < 0.001) compared with MRI alone. CONCLUSIONS: These first results demonstrate the high diagnostic potential of integrated PET/MRI for the assessment of recurrence of female pelvic malignancies compared with MRI alone.
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to assess the diagnostic value of integrated positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance imaging (PET/MRI) for whole-body staging of patients with recurrent gynecological pelvic malignancies, in comparison to whole-body MRI alone. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was approved by the local institutional ethics committee. Written informed consent was obtained before each examination. Thirty-four consecutive patients with a suspected recurrence of cervical (n = 18) or ovarian (n = 16) cancer were prospectively enrolled for an integrated PET/MRI examination, which comprised a diagnostic, contrast-enhanced whole-body MRI protocol including dedicated sagittal dynamic imaging of the pelvis. Two radiologists separately evaluated the data sets regarding lesion count, lesion detection, lesion characterization, and diagnostic confidence. Mean and median values were calculated for each rating. Statistical analyses were performed both per-patient and per-lesion bases using a Wilcoxon signed-rank test to indicate potential significant differences among PET/MRI and MRI (alone) data sets. RESULTS:Malignant lesions were present in 25 of the 34 patients. Positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance imaging offered correct and superior identification of all 25 patients with cancer recurrence, compared with MRI alone (23/25). A total of 118 lesions (malignant, 89; benign, 29) were detected. Positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance imaging correctly identified 88 (98.9%) of 89 malignant lesions, whereas MRI alone allowed for correct identification of 79 (88.8%) of the 89 malignant lesions. In addition, PET/MRI provided significantly higher lesion contrast and diagnostic confidence in the detection of malignant lesions (P < 0.001) compared with MRI alone. CONCLUSIONS: These first results demonstrate the high diagnostic potential of integrated PET/MRI for the assessment of recurrence of female pelvic malignancies compared with MRI alone.
Authors: Stuart A Taylor; Susan Mallett; Anne Miles; Stephen Morris; Laura Quinn; Caroline S Clarke; Sandy Beare; John Bridgewater; Vicky Goh; Sam Janes; Dow-Mu Koh; Alison Morton; Neal Navani; Alfred Oliver; Anwar Padhani; Shonit Punwani; Andrea Rockall; Steve Halligan Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2019-12 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Lisa A Min; Wouter V Vogel; Max J Lahaye; Monique Maas; Maarten L Donswijk; Erik Vegt; Miranda Kusters; Henry J Zijlmans; Katarzyna Jóźwiak; Sander Roberti; Regina G H Beets-Tan; Doenja M J Lambregts Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2019-05-22 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Katrijn L M Michielsen; Ignace Vergote; Raphaëla Dresen; Katya Op de Beeck; Ragna Vanslembrouck; Frédéric Amant; Karin Leunen; Philippe Moerman; Steffen Fieuws; Frederik De Keyzer; Vincent Vandecaveye Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2016-09-21 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Kent Friedman; Hersh Chandarana; Amy Melsaether; Linda Moy; Yu-Shin Ding; Komal Jhaveri; Luis Beltran; Rajan Jain Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2015-10-22 Impact factor: 3.959