PURPOSE: To evaluate the diagnostic potential of PET/MRI with [(18)F]FDG in recurrent ovarian and cervical cancer in comparison to PET/CT. METHODS: A group of 19 patients with suspected recurrence of pelvic malignancies (ovarian cancer, 11 patients; cervical cancer, 8 patients) scheduled for an [(18)F]FDG PET/CT were subsequently enrolled for a PET/MRI. The scan protocol comprised: (1) a T1-W axial VIBE after contrast agent adminstration, (2) an axial T2-W HASTE, (3) a coronal TIRM, (4) an axial DWI, and dedicated MR sequences of the female pelvis including (5) a T1-W VIBE before contrast agent adminstration, (6) a sagittal T2-W TSE, and (7) a sagittal T1-W dynamic VIBE. The datasets (PET/CT, PET/MRI) were rated separately by two readers regarding lesion count, lesion localization, lesion conspicuity (four-point scale), lesion characterization (benign/malignant/indeterminate) and diagnostic confidence (three-point scale). All available data (histology, prior examinations, PET/CT, PET/MRI, follow-up examinations) served as standard of reference. Median values were compared using the Wilcoxon rank sum test. RESULTS: Metastatic lesions were present in 16 of the 19 patients. A total of 78 lesions (malignant, 58; benign, 20) were described. Both PET/CT and PET/MRI allowed correct identification of all malignant lesions and provided equivalent conspicuity (3.86 ± 0.35 for PET/CT, 3.91 ± 0.28 for PET/MRI; p > 0.05). Diagnostic confidence was significantly higher for PET/MRI in malignant (p < 0.01) and benign lesions (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Both PET/CT and PET/MRI offer an equivalently high diagnostic value for recurrent pelvic malignancies. PET/MRI offers higher diagnostic confidence in the discrimination of benign and malignant lesions. Considering the reduced radiation dose and superior lesion discrimination, PET/MRI may serve as a powerful alternative to PET/CT in the future.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the diagnostic potential of PET/MRI with [(18)F]FDG in recurrent ovarian and cervical cancer in comparison to PET/CT. METHODS: A group of 19 patients with suspected recurrence of pelvic malignancies (ovarian cancer, 11 patients; cervical cancer, 8 patients) scheduled for an [(18)F]FDG PET/CT were subsequently enrolled for a PET/MRI. The scan protocol comprised: (1) a T1-W axial VIBE after contrast agent adminstration, (2) an axial T2-W HASTE, (3) a coronal TIRM, (4) an axial DWI, and dedicated MR sequences of the female pelvis including (5) a T1-W VIBE before contrast agent adminstration, (6) a sagittal T2-W TSE, and (7) a sagittal T1-W dynamic VIBE. The datasets (PET/CT, PET/MRI) were rated separately by two readers regarding lesion count, lesion localization, lesion conspicuity (four-point scale), lesion characterization (benign/malignant/indeterminate) and diagnostic confidence (three-point scale). All available data (histology, prior examinations, PET/CT, PET/MRI, follow-up examinations) served as standard of reference. Median values were compared using the Wilcoxon rank sum test. RESULTS: Metastatic lesions were present in 16 of the 19 patients. A total of 78 lesions (malignant, 58; benign, 20) were described. Both PET/CT and PET/MRI allowed correct identification of all malignant lesions and provided equivalent conspicuity (3.86 ± 0.35 for PET/CT, 3.91 ± 0.28 for PET/MRI; p > 0.05). Diagnostic confidence was significantly higher for PET/MRI in malignant (p < 0.01) and benign lesions (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Both PET/CT and PET/MRI offer an equivalently high diagnostic value for recurrent pelvic malignancies. PET/MRI offers higher diagnostic confidence in the discrimination of benign and malignant lesions. Considering the reduced radiation dose and superior lesion discrimination, PET/MRI may serve as a powerful alternative to PET/CT in the future.
Authors: Jill Barnholtz-Sloan; Nitin Patel; Dana Rollison; Karl Kortepeter; Jill MacKinnon; Anna Giuliano Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2009-03-01 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: J Ruf; E Lopez Hänninen; M Böhmig; I Koch; T Denecke; M Plotkin; J Langrehr; B Wiedenmann; R Felix; H Amthauer Journal: Pancreatology Date: 2006-11-13 Impact factor: 3.996
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: Wui-Jin Koh; Benjamin E Greer; Nadeem R Abu-Rustum; Sachin M Apte; Susana M Campos; John Chan; Kathleen R Cho; David Cohn; Marta Ann Crispens; Nefertiti DuPont; Patricia J Eifel; David K Gaffney; Robert L Giuntoli; Ernest Han; Warner K Huh; John R Lurain; Lainie Martin; Mark A Morgan; David Mutch; Steven W Remmenga; R Kevin Reynolds; William Small; Nelson Teng; Todd Tillmanns; Fidel A Valea; Nicole R McMillian; Miranda Hughes Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2013-03-01 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Lutz S Freudenberg; Sandra J Rosenbaum; Thomas Beyer; Andreas Bockisch; Gerald Antoch Journal: Radiol Clin North Am Date: 2007-07 Impact factor: 2.303
Authors: Thomas A Hope; Zahi A Fayad; Kathryn J Fowler; Dawn Holley; Andrei Iagaru; Alan B McMillan; Patrick Veit-Haiback; Robert J Witte; Greg Zaharchuk; Ciprian Catana Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2019-05-23 Impact factor: 10.057
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: 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: Eric C Ehman; Geoffrey B Johnson; Javier E Villanueva-Meyer; Soonmee Cha; Andrew Palmera Leynes; Peder Eric Zufall Larson; Thomas A Hope Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2017-03-30 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Lino M Sawicki; Christian Buchbender; Johannes Boos; Markus Giessing; Johannes Ermert; Christina Antke; Gerald Antoch; Hubertus Hautzel Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2016-03-21 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Alexis Vrachimis; Matthias Christian Burg; Christian Wenning; Thomas Allkemper; Matthias Weckesser; Michael Schäfers; Lars Stegger Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2015-09-29 Impact factor: 9.236