Alexis Vrachimis1, Matthias Christian Burg2, Christian Wenning3, Thomas Allkemper2, Matthias Weckesser3, Michael Schäfers3,4, Lars Stegger3. 1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Münster, Albert-Schweitzer-Campus 1, Building A1, 48149, Münster, Germany. vrachal@uni-muenster.de. 2. Department of Clinical Radiology, University Hospital Münster, Albert-Schweitzer-Campus 1, Building A1, 48149, Münster, Germany. 3. Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Münster, Albert-Schweitzer-Campus 1, Building A1, 48149, Münster, Germany. 4. European Institute for Molecular Imaging, Westfälische Wilhelms University Münster, Waldeyerstrasse 15, 48149, Münster, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the diagnostic potential of PET/MRI with [(18)F]FDG in comparison to PET/CT in patients with differentiated thyroid cancer suspected or known to have dedifferentiated. METHODS: The study included 31 thyroidectomized and remnant-ablated patients who underwent a scheduled [(18)F]FDG PET/CT scan and were then enrolled for a PET/MRI scan of the neck and thorax. The datasets (PET/CT, PET/MRI) were rated regarding lesion count, conspicuity, diameter and characterization. Standardized uptake values were determined for all [(18)F]FDG-positive lesions. Histology, cytology, and examinations before and after treatment served as the standards of reference. RESULTS: Of 26 patients with a dedifferentiated tumour burden, 25 were correctly identified by both [(18)F]FDG PET/CT and PET/MRI. Detection rates by PET/CT and PET/MRI were 97 % (113 of 116 lesions) and 85 % (99 of 113 lesions) for malignant lesions, and 100 % (48 of 48 lesions) and 77 % (37 of 48 lesions) for benign lesions, respectively. Lesion conspicuity was higher on PET/CT for both malignant and benign pulmonary lesions and in the overall rating for malignant lesions (p < 0.001). There was a difference between PET/CT and PET/MRI in overall evaluation of malignant lesions (p < 0.01) and detection of pulmonary metastases (p < 0.001). Surgical evaluation revealed three malignant lesions missed by both modalities. PET/MRI additionally failed to detect 14 pulmonary metastases and 11 benign lesions. CONCLUSION: In patients with thyroid cancer and suspected or known dedifferentiation, [(18)F]FDG PET/MRI was inferior to low-dose [(18)F]FDG PET/CT for the assessment of pulmonary status. However, for the assessment of cervical status, [(18)F]FDG PET/MRI was equal to contrast-enhanced neck [(18)F]FDG PET/CT. Therefore, [(18)F]FDG PET/MRI combined with a low-dose CT scan of the thorax may provide an imaging solution when high-quality imaging is needed and high-energy CT is undesirable or the use of a contrast agent is contraindicated.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the diagnostic potential of PET/MRI with [(18)F]FDG in comparison to PET/CT in patients with differentiated thyroid cancer suspected or known to have dedifferentiated. METHODS: The study included 31 thyroidectomized and remnant-ablated patients who underwent a scheduled [(18)F]FDG PET/CT scan and were then enrolled for a PET/MRI scan of the neck and thorax. The datasets (PET/CT, PET/MRI) were rated regarding lesion count, conspicuity, diameter and characterization. Standardized uptake values were determined for all [(18)F]FDG-positive lesions. Histology, cytology, and examinations before and after treatment served as the standards of reference. RESULTS: Of 26 patients with a dedifferentiated tumour burden, 25 were correctly identified by both [(18)F]FDG PET/CT and PET/MRI. Detection rates by PET/CT and PET/MRI were 97 % (113 of 116 lesions) and 85 % (99 of 113 lesions) for malignant lesions, and 100 % (48 of 48 lesions) and 77 % (37 of 48 lesions) for benign lesions, respectively. Lesion conspicuity was higher on PET/CT for both malignant and benign pulmonary lesions and in the overall rating for malignant lesions (p < 0.001). There was a difference between PET/CT and PET/MRI in overall evaluation of malignant lesions (p < 0.01) and detection of pulmonary metastases (p < 0.001). Surgical evaluation revealed three malignant lesions missed by both modalities. PET/MRI additionally failed to detect 14 pulmonary metastases and 11 benign lesions. CONCLUSION: In patients with thyroid cancer and suspected or known dedifferentiation, [(18)F]FDG PET/MRI was inferior to low-dose [(18)F]FDG PET/CT for the assessment of pulmonary status. However, for the assessment of cervical status, [(18)F]FDG PET/MRI was equal to contrast-enhanced neck [(18)F]FDG PET/CT. Therefore, [(18)F]FDG PET/MRI combined with a low-dose CT scan of the thorax may provide an imaging solution when high-quality imaging is needed and high-energy CT is undesirable or the use of a contrast agent is contraindicated.
Authors: David S Cooper; Gerard M Doherty; Bryan R Haugen; Bryan R Hauger; Richard T Kloos; Stephanie L Lee; Susan J Mandel; Ernest L Mazzaferri; Bryan McIver; Furio Pacini; Martin Schlumberger; Steven I Sherman; David L Steward; R Michael Tuttle Journal: Thyroid Date: 2009-11 Impact factor: 6.568
Authors: Gaspar Delso; Sebastian Fürst; Björn Jakoby; Ralf Ladebeck; Carl Ganter; Stephan G Nekolla; Markus Schwaiger; Sibylle I Ziegler Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2011-11-11 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: M Luster; S E Clarke; M Dietlein; M Lassmann; P Lind; W J G Oyen; J Tennvall; E Bombardieri Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2008-10 Impact factor: 9.236
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: M Dietlein; J Dressler; W Eschner; F Grünwald; M Lassmann; B Leisner; M Luster; E Moser; Chr Reiners; H Schicha; O Schober Journal: Nuklearmedizin Date: 2007 Impact factor: 1.379
Authors: B Riemann; K Uhrhan; M Dietlein; D Schmidt; T Kuwert; R Dorn; J Sciuk; T Kodalle; O Schober Journal: Nuklearmedizin Date: 2012-11-28 Impact factor: 1.379
Authors: Kyung Hee Lee; Chang Min Park; Sang Min Lee; Jeong Min Lee; Jeong Yeon Cho; Jin Chul Paeng; Su Yeon Ahn; Jin Mo Goo Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-06-11 Impact factor: 3.240
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: Laurent Dercle; Désirée Deandreis; Marie Terroir; Sophie Leboulleux; Jean Lumbroso; Martin Schlumberger Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2016-06 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Johann-Martin Hempel; Roman Kloeckner; Sandra Krick; Daniel Pinto Dos Santos; Simin Schadmand-Fischer; Patrick Boeßert; Sotirios Bisdas; Matthias M Weber; Christian Fottner; Thomas J Musholt; Mathias Schreckenberger; Matthias Miederer Journal: Cancer Imaging Date: 2016-11-03 Impact factor: 3.909