PURPOSE: In various tumours PET/CT with [(18)F]FDG is widely accepted as the diagnostic standard of care. The purpose of this study was to compare a dedicated [(18)F]FDG PET/MRI protocol with [(18)F]FDG PET/CT for TNM staging in a cohort of oncological patients. METHODS: A dedicated [(18)F]FDG PET/MRI protocol was performed in 73 consecutive patients (mean age of 59 years, range 21 - 85 years) with different histologically confirmed solid primary malignant tumours after a routine clinical FDG PET/CT scan (60 min after injection of 295 ± 45 MBq [(18)F]FDG). TNM staging according to the 7th edition of the AJCC Cancer Staging Manual was performed by two readers in separate sessions for PET/CT and PET/MRI images. Assessment of the primary tumour and nodal and distant metastases with FDG PET/CT and FDG PET/MRI was based on qualitative and quantitative analyses. Histopathology, and radiological and clinical follow-up served as the standards of reference. A McNemar test was performed to evaluate the differences in diagnostic performance between the imaging procedures. RESULTS: From FDG PET/CT and FDG PET/MRI T stage was correctly determined in 22 (82 %) and 20 (74 %) of 27 patients, N stage in 55 (82 %) and 56 (84 %) of 67 patients, and M stage in 32 (76 %) and 35 (83 %) of 42 patients, respectively. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and diagnostic accuracy for lymph node metastases were 65 %, 94 %, 79 %, 89 % and 87 % for PET/CT, and 63 %, 94 %, 80 %, 87 % and 85 % for PET/MRI. The respective values for the detection of distant metastases were 50 %, 82 %, 40 %, 88 % and 76 % for PET/CT, and 50 %, 91 %, 57 %, 89 % and 83 % for PET/MRI. Differences between the two imaging modalities were not statistically significant (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: According to our results, FDG PET/CT and FDG PET/MRI are of equal diagnostic accuracy for TNM staging in patients with solid tumours.
PURPOSE: In various tumours PET/CT with [(18)F]FDG is widely accepted as the diagnostic standard of care. The purpose of this study was to compare a dedicated [(18)F]FDG PET/MRI protocol with [(18)F]FDG PET/CT for TNM staging in a cohort of oncological patients. METHODS: A dedicated [(18)F]FDG PET/MRI protocol was performed in 73 consecutive patients (mean age of 59 years, range 21 - 85 years) with different histologically confirmed solid primary malignant tumours after a routine clinical FDG PET/CT scan (60 min after injection of 295 ± 45 MBq [(18)F]FDG). TNM staging according to the 7th edition of the AJCC Cancer Staging Manual was performed by two readers in separate sessions for PET/CT and PET/MRI images. Assessment of the primary tumour and nodal and distant metastases with FDG PET/CT and FDG PET/MRI was based on qualitative and quantitative analyses. Histopathology, and radiological and clinical follow-up served as the standards of reference. A McNemar test was performed to evaluate the differences in diagnostic performance between the imaging procedures. RESULTS: From FDG PET/CT and FDG PET/MRI T stage was correctly determined in 22 (82 %) and 20 (74 %) of 27 patients, N stage in 55 (82 %) and 56 (84 %) of 67 patients, and M stage in 32 (76 %) and 35 (83 %) of 42 patients, respectively. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and diagnostic accuracy for lymph node metastases were 65 %, 94 %, 79 %, 89 % and 87 % for PET/CT, and 63 %, 94 %, 80 %, 87 % and 85 % for PET/MRI. The respective values for the detection of distant metastases were 50 %, 82 %, 40 %, 88 % and 76 % for PET/CT, and 50 %, 91 %, 57 %, 89 % and 83 % for PET/MRI. Differences between the two imaging modalities were not statistically significant (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: According to our results, FDG PET/CT and FDG PET/MRI are of equal diagnostic accuracy for TNM staging in patients with solid tumours.
Authors: K Kubiessa; S Purz; M Gawlitza; A Kühn; J Fuchs; K G Steinhoff; A Boehm; O Sabri; R Kluge; T Kahn; P Stumpp Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2013-11-29 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Onofrio A Catalano; Bruce R Rosen; Dushyant V Sahani; Peter F Hahn; Alexander R Guimaraes; Mark G Vangel; Emanuele Nicolai; Andrea Soricelli; Marco Salvatore Journal: Radiology Date: 2013-10-28 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Nina F Schwenzer; Christina Schraml; Mark Müller; Cornelia Brendle; Alexander Sauter; Werner Spengler; Anna C Pfannenberg; Claus D Claussen; Holger Schmidt Journal: Radiology Date: 2012-05-31 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Christian Buchbender; Verena Hartung-Knemeyer; Karsten Beiderwellen; Philipp Heusch; Hilmar Kühl; Thomas C Lauenstein; Michael Forsting; Gerald Antoch; Till A Heusner Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2013-02-18 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Philipp Heusch; Christian Buchbender; Karsten Beiderwellen; Felix Nensa; Verena Hartung-Knemeyer; Thomas C Lauenstein; Andreas Bockisch; Michael Forsting; Gerald Antoch; Till A Heusner Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2013-02-08 Impact factor: 3.528
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: Vincent Vandecaveye; Frederik De Keyzer; Vincent Vander Poorten; Piet Dirix; Eric Verbeken; Sandra Nuyts; Robert Hermans Journal: Radiology Date: 2009-02-27 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Benedikt Schaarschmidt; Christian Buchbender; Benedikt Gomez; Christian Rubbert; Florian Hild; Jens Köhler; Johannes Grueneisen; Henning Reis; Verena Ruhlmann; Axel Wetter; Harald H Quick; Gerald Antoch; Philipp Heusch Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2015-04-08 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: C Brendle; N F Schwenzer; H Rempp; H Schmidt; C Pfannenberg; C la Fougère; K Nikolaou; C Schraml Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2015-07-31 Impact factor: 9.236
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