OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to assess the role of recently introduced hybrid PET/MRI in the evaluation of lymphoma patients using PET/CT as a reference standard. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: In this prospective study 28 consecutive lymphoma patients (18 men, 10 women; mean age, 53.6 years) undergoing clinically indicated PET/ CT were subsequently imaged with PET/MRI using residual FDG activity from the PET/ CT study. Blinded readers evaluated PET/CT (reference standard), PET/MRI, and diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) studies separately; for each study, they assessed nodal and extranodal involvement. Each FDG-avid nodal station was marked and compared on DWI, PET/MRI, and PET/CT. Modified Ann Arbor staging was performed and compared between PET/MRI and PET/CT. The maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) on PET/MRI for FDG-avid nodal lesions was compared with the SUVmax on PET/CT. The apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) for FDG-avid nodal lesions was compared to SUVmax on PET/MRI. RESULTS: Fifty-one FDG-avid nodal groups were identified on PET/CT in 13 patients. PET/MRI identified 51 of these nodal groups with a sensitivity of 100%. DWI identified 32 nodal groups for a sensitivity of 62.7%. PET/MRI staging and PET/CT staging were concordant in 96.4% of patients. For the one patient with discordant staging results, disease was correctly upstaged to stage IV on the basis of the PET/MRI finding of bone marrow involvement, which was missed on PET/CT. DWI staging was concordant with PET/CT staging in 64.3% of the patients. The increased staging accuracy of PET/MRI relative to DWI was significant (p=0.004). SUVmax measured on PET/MRI and PET/CT showed excellent statistically significant correlation (r=0.98, p<0.001). There was a poor negative correlation between ADC and SUVmax (r=-0.036, p=0.847). CONCLUSION: PET/MRI can be used to assess disease burden in lymphoma with sensitivity similar to PET/CT and can be a viable alternative for lymphoma staging and follow-up.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to assess the role of recently introduced hybrid PET/MRI in the evaluation of lymphomapatients using PET/CT as a reference standard. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: In this prospective study 28 consecutive lymphomapatients (18 men, 10 women; mean age, 53.6 years) undergoing clinically indicated PET/ CT were subsequently imaged with PET/MRI using residual FDG activity from the PET/ CT study. Blinded readers evaluated PET/CT (reference standard), PET/MRI, and diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) studies separately; for each study, they assessed nodal and extranodal involvement. Each FDG-avid nodal station was marked and compared on DWI, PET/MRI, and PET/CT. Modified Ann Arbor staging was performed and compared between PET/MRI and PET/CT. The maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) on PET/MRI for FDG-avid nodal lesions was compared with the SUVmax on PET/CT. The apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) for FDG-avid nodal lesions was compared to SUVmax on PET/MRI. RESULTS: Fifty-one FDG-avid nodal groups were identified on PET/CT in 13 patients. PET/MRI identified 51 of these nodal groups with a sensitivity of 100%. DWI identified 32 nodal groups for a sensitivity of 62.7%. PET/MRI staging and PET/CT staging were concordant in 96.4% of patients. For the one patient with discordant staging results, disease was correctly upstaged to stage IV on the basis of the PET/MRI finding of bone marrow involvement, which was missed on PET/CT. DWI staging was concordant with PET/CT staging in 64.3% of the patients. The increased staging accuracy of PET/MRI relative to DWI was significant (p=0.004). SUVmax measured on PET/MRI and PET/CT showed excellent statistically significant correlation (r=0.98, p<0.001). There was a poor negative correlation between ADC and SUVmax (r=-0.036, p=0.847). CONCLUSION: PET/MRI can be used to assess disease burden in lymphoma with sensitivity similar to PET/CT and can be a viable alternative for lymphoma staging and follow-up.
Authors: Philipp Heusch; Christian Buchbender; Jens Köhler; Felix Nensa; Thomas Gauler; Benedikt Gomez; Henning Reis; Georgios Stamatis; Hilmar Kühl; Verena Hartung; Till A Heusner Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2014-02-06 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Malik E Juweid; Sigrid Stroobants; Otto S Hoekstra; Felix M Mottaghy; Markus Dietlein; Ali Guermazi; Gregory A Wiseman; Lale Kostakoglu; Klemens Scheidhauer; Andreas Buck; Ralph Naumann; Karoline Spaepen; Rodney J Hicks; Wolfgang A Weber; Sven N Reske; Markus Schwaiger; Lawrence H Schwartz; Josee M Zijlstra; Barry A Siegel; Bruce D Cheson Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-01-22 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Rajan Rakheja; Hersh Chandarana; Linda DeMello; Kimberly Jackson; Christian Geppert; David Faul; Christopher Glielmi; Kent P Friedman Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2013-11 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Thomas C Kwee; Malou A Vermoolen; Erik A Akkerman; Marie José Kersten; Rob Fijnheer; Inge Ludwig; Frederik J A Beek; Maarten S van Leeuwen; Marc B Bierings; Marrie C A Bruin; József Zsíros; Henriëtte M E Quarles van Ufford; John M H de Klerk; Judit Adam; Jaap Stoker; Cuno S Uiterwaal; Rutger A J Nievelstein Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2013-10-31 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: L Kamper; N M Dreger; A S Brandt; T Pöppel; N Abanador-Kamper; S Roth; P Haage Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2018-06-15 Impact factor: 2.357
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: 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: Brian S Pugmire; Alexander R Guimaraes; Ruth Lim; Alison M Friedmann; Mary Huang; David Ebb; Howard Weinstein; Onofrio A Catalano; Umar Mahmood; Ciprian Catana; Michael S Gee Journal: World J Radiol Date: 2016-03-28