PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare coregistration of the bladder wall, bladder masses, and pelvic lymph nodes between sequential and simultaneous PET and MRI acquisitions obtained during hybrid (18)F-FDG PET/MRI performed using a diuresis protocol in bladder cancer patients. METHODS: Six bladder cancer patients underwent (18)F-FDG hybrid PET/MRI, including IV Lasix administration and oral hydration, before imaging to achieve bladder clearance. Axial T2-weighted imaging (T2WI) was obtained approximately 40 minutes before PET ("sequential") and concurrently with PET ("simultaneous"). Three-dimensional spatial coordinates of the bladder wall, bladder masses, and pelvic lymph nodes were recorded for PET and T2WI. Distances between these locations on PET and T2WI sequences were computed and used to compare in-plane (x-y plane) and through-plane (z-axis) misregistration relative to PET between T2WI acquisitions. RESULTS: The bladder increased in volume between T2WI acquisitions (sequential, 176 [139] mL; simultaneous, 255 [146] mL). Four patients exhibited a bladder mass, all with increased activity (SUV, 9.5-38.4). Seven pelvic lymph nodes in 4 patients showed increased activity (SUV, 2.2-9.9). The bladder wall exhibited substantially less misregistration relative to PET for simultaneous, compared with sequential, acquisitions in in-plane (2.8 [3.1] mm vs 7.4 [9.1] mm) and through-plane (1.7 [2.2] mm vs 5.7 [9.6] mm) dimensions. Bladder masses exhibited slightly decreased misregistration for simultaneous, compared with sequential, acquisitions in in-plane (2.2 [1.4] mm vs 2.6 [1.9] mm) and through-plane (0.0 [0.0] mm vs 0.3 [0.8] mm) dimensions. FDG-avid lymph nodes exhibited slightly decreased in-plane misregistration (1.1 [0.8] mm vs 2.5 [0.6] mm), although identical through-plane misregistration (4.0 [1.9] mm vs 4.0 [2.8] mm). CONCLUSIONS: Using hybrid PET/MRI, simultaneous imaging substantially improved bladder wall coregistration and slightly improved coregistration of bladder masses and pelvic lymph nodes.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare coregistration of the bladder wall, bladder masses, and pelvic lymph nodes between sequential and simultaneous PET and MRI acquisitions obtained during hybrid (18)F-FDG PET/MRI performed using a diuresis protocol in bladder cancerpatients. METHODS: Six bladder cancerpatients underwent (18)F-FDG hybrid PET/MRI, including IV Lasix administration and oral hydration, before imaging to achieve bladder clearance. Axial T2-weighted imaging (T2WI) was obtained approximately 40 minutes before PET ("sequential") and concurrently with PET ("simultaneous"). Three-dimensional spatial coordinates of the bladder wall, bladder masses, and pelvic lymph nodes were recorded for PET and T2WI. Distances between these locations on PET and T2WI sequences were computed and used to compare in-plane (x-y plane) and through-plane (z-axis) misregistration relative to PET between T2WI acquisitions. RESULTS: The bladder increased in volume between T2WI acquisitions (sequential, 176 [139] mL; simultaneous, 255 [146] mL). Four patients exhibited a bladder mass, all with increased activity (SUV, 9.5-38.4). Seven pelvic lymph nodes in 4 patients showed increased activity (SUV, 2.2-9.9). The bladder wall exhibited substantially less misregistration relative to PET for simultaneous, compared with sequential, acquisitions in in-plane (2.8 [3.1] mm vs 7.4 [9.1] mm) and through-plane (1.7 [2.2] mm vs 5.7 [9.6] mm) dimensions. Bladder masses exhibited slightly decreased misregistration for simultaneous, compared with sequential, acquisitions in in-plane (2.2 [1.4] mm vs 2.6 [1.9] mm) and through-plane (0.0 [0.0] mm vs 0.3 [0.8] mm) dimensions. FDG-avid lymph nodes exhibited slightly decreased in-plane misregistration (1.1 [0.8] mm vs 2.5 [0.6] mm), although identical through-plane misregistration (4.0 [1.9] mm vs 4.0 [2.8] mm). CONCLUSIONS: Using hybrid PET/MRI, simultaneous imaging substantially improved bladder wall coregistration and slightly improved coregistration of bladder masses and pelvic lymph nodes.
Authors: Cornelia B Brendle; Holger Schmidt; Sabrina Fleischer; Uli H Braeuning; Christina A Pfannenberg; Nina F Schwenzer Journal: Radiology Date: 2013-05-08 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Matthias Eiber; Axel Martinez-Möller; Michael Souvatzoglou; Konstantin Holzapfel; Anja Pickhard; Dennys Löffelbein; Ivan Santi; Ernst J Rummeny; Sibylle Ziegler; Markus Schwaiger; Stephan G Nekolla; Ambros J Beer Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2011-06-18 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Christian Cohade; Medhat Osman; Laura N T Marshall; Richard N T L Wahl Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2003-03-01 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Ahmed El-Assmy; Mohamed E Abou-El-Ghar; Ahmed Mosbah; Ahmed R El-Nahas; Huda F Refaie; Ihab A Hekal; Tarek El-Diasty; El Housseiny Ibrahiem Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2009-02-27 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Nermin Tuncbilek; Mustafa Kaplan; Semsi Altaner; Irfan H Atakan; Necdet Süt; Osman Inci; Mustafa Kemal Demir Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2009-04 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Kent P Friedman; Fabio Ponzo; Roy A Raad; Kimberly Jackson; William C Huang; Arjun V Balar Journal: Clin Nucl Med Date: 2017-01 Impact factor: 7.794
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
Authors: R A Towner; N Smith; D Saunders; S B Van Gordon; K R Tyler; A B Wisniewski; B Greenwood-Van Meerveld; R E Hurst Journal: Neurogastroenterol Motil Date: 2015-08-24 Impact factor: 3.598
Authors: Antti Salminen; Ivan Jambor; Harri Merisaari; Otto Ettala; Johanna Virtanen; Ilmari Koskinen; Erik Veskimae; Jukka Sairanen; Pekka Taimen; Jukka Kemppainen; Heikki Minn; Peter J Boström Journal: Cancer Imaging Date: 2018-08-02 Impact factor: 3.909