C Brendle1, N F Schwenzer2, H Rempp2, H Schmidt2, C Pfannenberg2, C la Fougère3, K Nikolaou2, C Schraml2. 1. Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Department of Radiology, Eberhard Karls University, Hoppe-Seyler-Straße 3, 72076, Tuebingen, Germany. cornelia.brendle@med.uni-tuebingen.de. 2. Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Department of Radiology, Eberhard Karls University, Hoppe-Seyler-Straße 3, 72076, Tuebingen, Germany. 3. Nuclear Medicine, Department of Radiology, Eberhard Karls University, Hoppe-Seyler-Straße 3, 72076, Tuebingen, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose was to investigate the diagnostic performance of different combinations of anatomical and functional imaging techniques in PET/MRI and PET/CT for the evaluation of metastatic colorectal cancer lesions. METHODS: Image data of 15 colorectal cancer patients (FDG-PET/CT and subsequent FDG-PET/MRI) were retrospectively evaluated by two readers in five reading sessions: MRI (morphology) alone, MRI/diffusion-weighted MRI (DWI), MRI/PET, MRI/DWI/PET; and PET/CT. Diagnostic performance of lesion detection with each combination was assessed in general and organ-based. The reference standard was given by histology and/or follow-up imaging. Separate analysis of mucinous tumours was performed. RESULTS: One hundred and eighty lesions (110 malignant) were evaluated (intestine n = 6, liver n = 37, lymph nodes n = 55, lung n = 4, and peritoneal n = 74). The overall lesion-based diagnostic accuracy was 0.46 for MRI, 0.47 for MRI/DWI, 0.57 for MRI/PET, 0.69 for MRI/DWI/PET and 0.66 for PET/CT. In the organ-based assessment, MRI/DWI/PET showed the highest accuracy for liver metastases (0.74), a comparable accuracy to PET/CT in peritoneal lesions (0.55), and in lymph node metastases (0.84). The accuracy in mucinous tumour lesions was limited in all modalities (MRI/DWI/PET = 0.52). CONCLUSIONS: PET/MRI including DWI is comparable to PET/CT in the evaluation of colorectal cancer metastases, with a markedly higher accuracy when using combined imaging data than the modalities separately. Further improvement is needed in the imaging of peritoneal carcinomatosis and mucinous tumours.
PURPOSE: The purpose was to investigate the diagnostic performance of different combinations of anatomical and functional imaging techniques in PET/MRI and PET/CT for the evaluation of metastatic colorectal cancer lesions. METHODS: Image data of 15 colorectal cancerpatients (FDG-PET/CT and subsequent FDG-PET/MRI) were retrospectively evaluated by two readers in five reading sessions: MRI (morphology) alone, MRI/diffusion-weighted MRI (DWI), MRI/PET, MRI/DWI/PET; and PET/CT. Diagnostic performance of lesion detection with each combination was assessed in general and organ-based. The reference standard was given by histology and/or follow-up imaging. Separate analysis of mucinous tumours was performed. RESULTS: One hundred and eighty lesions (110 malignant) were evaluated (intestine n = 6, liver n = 37, lymph nodes n = 55, lung n = 4, and peritoneal n = 74). The overall lesion-based diagnostic accuracy was 0.46 for MRI, 0.47 for MRI/DWI, 0.57 for MRI/PET, 0.69 for MRI/DWI/PET and 0.66 for PET/CT. In the organ-based assessment, MRI/DWI/PET showed the highest accuracy for liver metastases (0.74), a comparable accuracy to PET/CT in peritoneal lesions (0.55), and in lymph node metastases (0.84). The accuracy in mucinous tumour lesions was limited in all modalities (MRI/DWI/PET = 0.52). CONCLUSIONS: PET/MRI including DWI is comparable to PET/CT in the evaluation of colorectal cancer metastases, with a markedly higher accuracy when using combined imaging data than the modalities separately. Further improvement is needed in the imaging of peritoneal carcinomatosis and mucinous tumours.
Authors: Monique Maas; Iris J G Rutten; Patty J Nelemans; Doenja M J Lambregts; Vincent C Cappendijk; Geerard L Beets; Regina G H Beets-Tan Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2011-04-06 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Alexis Vrachimis; Lars Stegger; Christian Wenning; Benjamin Noto; Matthias Christian Burg; Julia Renate Konnert; Thomas Allkemper; Walter Heindel; Burkhard Riemann; Michael Schäfers; Matthias Weckesser Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2016-04-08 Impact factor: 9.236
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: Barbara Juarez Amorim; Angel Torrado-Carvajal; Shadi A Esfahani; Sara S Marcos; Mark Vangel; Dan Stein; David Groshar; Onofrio A Catalano Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2020-10 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Barbara J Amorim; Theodore S Hong; Lawrence S Blaszkowsky; Cristina R Ferrone; David L Berger; Liliana G Bordeianou; Rocco Ricciardi; Jeffrey W Clark; David P Ryan; Jennifer Y Wo; Motaz Qadan; Mark Vangel; Lale Umutlu; David Groshar; Lina G Cañamaques; Debra A Gervais; Umar Mahmood; Bruce R Rosen; Onofrio A Catalano Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2019-07-29 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Krista Elise Suarez-Weiss; Alexander Herold; Debra Gervais; Edwin Palmer; Bárbara Amorim; Joseph D King; Li Weier; Tajmir Shahein; Hanna Bernstine; Liran Domachevsk; Lina Garcia Cañamaque; Lale Umutlu; Ken Herrmann; David Groshar; Onofrio A Catalano Journal: Radiologe Date: 2020-05 Impact factor: 0.635