PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare detection, lesion conspicuity and reader confidence of F-fluorodeoxyglucose (F-FDG)-PET/MR and F-FDG-PET/computed tomography (CT) in patients with F-FDG avid bone metastases. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this prospective study, a total of 30 PET/CT and PET/MRI data sets were performed in 24 patients. Each examination was evaluated for the presence of PET-positive bone lesions consistent with metastatic involvement. Conspicuity of PET-positive bone lesions was evaluated on the corresponding PET/CT and PET/MR images and compared using the Wilcoxon signed-ranks test. Reader confidence was determined to evaluate whether PET/CT or PET/MR was more useful for the assessment of the bone metastases and was compared using Student's t-test. RESULTS: Overall, in both examinations, PET/CT and PET/MRI detected 86 F-FDG-positive bone lesions. On all 30 PET/MRI examinations, at least one morphological correlate for F-FDG-positive bone lesions was found on the MR component (82 out of 86 lesions). PET/CT imaging allowed identification of corresponding structural changes on the CT component in 23 out of 30 studies (65 out of 86 lesions). In lesion-by-lesion analysis, the mean lesion conspicuity was significantly better on T1 fat MR imaging compared with CT imaging (P=0.005). In seven out of 30 studies, a significant increase in reader confidence of PET/MRI compared with PET/CT was found. CONCLUSION: PET/MRI offers higher reader confidence and improved conspicuity in bone metastases compared with PET/CT. However, the overall detection rate was not different. The highest possible clinical impact of PET/MRI appears to be in patients with limited, early bone metastatic disease.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare detection, lesion conspicuity and reader confidence of F-fluorodeoxyglucose (F-FDG)-PET/MR and F-FDG-PET/computed tomography (CT) in patients with F-FDG avid bone metastases. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this prospective study, a total of 30 PET/CT and PET/MRI data sets were performed in 24 patients. Each examination was evaluated for the presence of PET-positive bone lesions consistent with metastatic involvement. Conspicuity of PET-positive bone lesions was evaluated on the corresponding PET/CT and PET/MR images and compared using the Wilcoxon signed-ranks test. Reader confidence was determined to evaluate whether PET/CT or PET/MR was more useful for the assessment of the bone metastases and was compared using Student's t-test. RESULTS: Overall, in both examinations, PET/CT and PET/MRI detected 86 F-FDG-positive bone lesions. On all 30 PET/MRI examinations, at least one morphological correlate for F-FDG-positive bone lesions was found on the MR component (82 out of 86 lesions). PET/CT imaging allowed identification of corresponding structural changes on the CT component in 23 out of 30 studies (65 out of 86 lesions). In lesion-by-lesion analysis, the mean lesion conspicuity was significantly better on T1 fat MR imaging compared with CT imaging (P=0.005). In seven out of 30 studies, a significant increase in reader confidence of PET/MRI compared with PET/CT was found. CONCLUSION: PET/MRI offers higher reader confidence and improved conspicuity in bone metastases compared with PET/CT. However, the overall detection rate was not different. The highest possible clinical impact of PET/MRI appears to be in patients with limited, early bone metastatic disease.
Authors: Ferdinand Seith; Christina Schraml; Gerald Reischl; Konstantin Nikolaou; Christina Pfannenberg; Christian la Fougère; Nina Schwenzer Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2018-06-30 Impact factor: 3.469
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: Jad S Husseini; Bárbara Juarez Amorim; Angel Torrado-Carvajal; Vinay Prabhu; David Groshar; Lale Umutlu; Ken Herrmann; Lina García Cañamaque; José Ramón García Garzón; William E Palmer; Pedram Heidari; Tiffany Ting-Fang Shih; Jacob Sosna; Cristina Matushita; Juliano Cerci; Marcelo Queiroz; Valdair Francisco Muglia; Marcello H Nogueira-Barbosa; Ronald J H Borra; Thomas C Kwee; Andor W J M Glaudemans; Laura Evangelista; Marco Salvatore; Alberto Cuocolo; Andrea Soricelli; Christian Herold; Andrea Laghi; Marius Mayerhoefer; Umar Mahmood; Ciprian Catana; Heike E Daldrup-Link; Bruce Rosen; Onofrio A Catalano Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2021-02-22 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: N Pyatigorskaya; R De Laroche; G Bera; A Giron; C Bertolus; G Herve; E Chambenois; S Bergeret; D Dormont; M Amor-Sahli; A Kas Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2020-09-24 Impact factor: 4.966