| Literature DB >> 25103913 |
Karin Nielsen, Hester J Scheffer, Indra C Pieters, Aukje A J M van Tilborg, Jan-Hein T M van Waesberghe, Daniela E Oprea-Lager, Martijn R Meijerink, Geert Kazemier, Otto S Hoekstra, Hermien W H Schreurs, Colin Sietses, Sybren Meijer, Emile F I Comans, Petrousjka M P van den Tol1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Thermal ablation of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) may result in local progression, which generally appear within a year of treatment. As the timely diagnosis of this progression allows potentially curative local treatment, an optimal follow-up imaging strategy is essential. PET-MRI is a one potential imaging modality, combining the advantages of PET and MRI. The aim of this study is evaluate fluorine-18 deoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG) PET-MRI as a modality for detection of local tumor progression during the first year following thermal ablation, as compared to the current standard, FDG PET-CT. The ability of FDG PET-MRI to detect new intrahepatic lesions, and the extent to which FDG PET-MRI alters clinical management, inter-observer variability and patient preference will also be included as secondary outcomes. METHODS/Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25103913 PMCID: PMC4141664 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2342-14-27
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Med Imaging ISSN: 1471-2342 Impact factor: 1.930
Questionnaire comparing PET-CT and PET-MRI (completed following fourth PET-MRI)
| It was comfortable | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | n/a |
| I felt scared | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | n/a |
| It took too long | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | n/a |
| The noise bothered me | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | n/a |
| I was reluctant to undergo the scan | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | n/a |
| It went better than expected | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | n/a |
| The PET-MRI contrast agents caused discomfort | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | n/a |
| It was comfortable | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | n/a |
| I felt scared | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | n/a |
| It took too long | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | n/a |
| The noise bothered me | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | n/a |
| I was reluctant to undergo the scan | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | n/a |
| It went better than expected | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | n/a |
| The PET-CT contrast agents caused discomfort | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | n/a |
| The PET-MRI was less of a burden than the PET-CT | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | n/a |
| It didn’t matter that the PET-MRI took longer than the PET-CT | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | n/a |
| If the results are equally good, I prefer the PET-MRI over the PET-CT | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | n/a |
| If the results of the PET-MRI are | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | n/a |
0: Don’t know. 1: Strongly disagree. 2: Disagree. 3: Neither agree nor disagree. 4: Agree. 5: Strongly agree. n/a: not applicable.
Figure 1Flow diagram of study procedure.
Imaging protocol and timeline of PET-MRI and PET-CT (T = approximate time in minutes)
| T = 0 | Injection FDG | |
| T = 5 | Start MRI | Axial T2-weighted imaging |
| | | T1 in- and opposed phase GRE |
| | | Diffusion-weighted imaging |
| | | Fat-suppressed T1-weighted eThrive (contrast enhanced) |
| - pre-contrast | ||
| - arterial phase (bolus tracking) | ||
| - portovenous phase (70 sec delay) | ||
| - late venous phase (200 sec delay) | ||
| | | Attenuation sequence (skullbase – midthigh) |
| | | Whole body T1-weighted mDixon (skullbase – midthigh) |
| T = 60 | | PET skullbase – midthigh |
| T = 75 | ||
| T = 95 | Start PET-CT | PET skullbase – midthigh |
| low dose CT | ||
| 4-phase CT liver | ||
| - pre-contrast | ||
| - arterial phase (bolus tracking) | ||
| - portovenous phase (70 sec delay) | ||
| - late venous phase (240 sec delay) | ||
| T = 145 | End PET-CT |
Test positivity criteria for progressive disease on different imaging modalities; ≤1 cm of the ablation zone (LTP) / >1 cm of the ablation zone (new intrahepatic recurrence)
| ceCT | | Newly detectable hypodense lesion |
| MRI | T1 | New focal hypo-intense lesion |
| | T2 | New focal hyper-intense lesion |
| | Contrast enhanced | Irregular peripheral enhancement pattern of a circumscribed lesion |
| | Diffusion weighed | Lesion with high signal intensity on b800 |
| FDG PET | Lesion with clearly increased focal uptake as compared to liver background |
Study form for reviewers’ results (per lesion base)
| 1 | Normal | Confident that no tumor recurrence is present in the ablation zone/confident that no new intrahepatic lesions are present |
| 2 | Probably benign | The appearance of the ablated lesion is compatible with post-ablational inflammation or rim-like characteristics/the new lesions diagnosed do not appear malignant |
| 3 | Equivocal | There is doubt whether the enhanced FDG, CT- and/or MRI features indicate tumor progression or inflammation/there is doubt whether the new lesions diagnosed are benign or malignant |
| 4 | Probably malignant | Confident of local progression in the ablation zone/confident of new intrahepatic metastases |
| Size or estimated size: | ||
| Location: | ||
| Intensity FDG vs normal liver; slight/moderate/intense | ||
| 5 | Impaired quality | Quality of the images precludes adequate diagnosis |
| Comments: | ||