UNLABELLED: With the increasing availability of integrated PET/MR scanners, the utility and need for MR contrast agents for combined scans is questioned. The purpose of our study was to evaluate whether administration of gadolinium chelates is necessary for evaluation of pediatric tumors on (18)F-FDG PET/MR images. METHODS: First, in 119 pediatric patients with primary and secondary tumors, we used 14 diagnostic criteria to compare the accuracy of several MR sequences: unenhanced T2-weighted fast spin-echo imaging; unenhanced diffusion-weighted imaging; and-before and after gadolinium chelate contrast enhancement-T1-weighted 3-dimensional spoiled gradient echo LAVA (liver acquisition with volume acquisition) imaging. Next, in a subset of 36 patients who had undergone (18)F-FDG PET within 3 wk of MRI, we fused the PET images with the unenhanced T2-weighted MR images (unenhanced (18)F-FDG PET/MRI) and the enhanced T1-weighted MR images (enhanced (18)F-FDG PET/MRI). Using the McNemar test, we compared the accuracy of the two types of fused images using the 14 diagnostic criteria. We also evaluated the concordance between (18)F-FDG avidity and gadolinium chelate enhancement. The standard of reference was histopathologic results, surgical notes, and follow-up imaging. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in diagnostic accuracy between the unenhanced and enhanced MR images. Accordingly, there was no significant difference in diagnostic accuracy between the unenhanced and enhanced (18)F-FDG PET/MR images. (18)F-FDG avidity and gadolinium chelate enhancement were concordant in 30 of the 36 patients and 106 of their 123 tumors. CONCLUSION: Gadolinium chelate administration is not necessary for accurate diagnostic characterization of most solid pediatric malignancies on (18)F-FDG PET/MR images, with the possible exception of focal liver lesions.
UNLABELLED: With the increasing availability of integrated PET/MR scanners, the utility and need for MR contrast agents for combined scans is questioned. The purpose of our study was to evaluate whether administration of gadolinium chelates is necessary for evaluation of pediatric tumors on (18)F-FDG PET/MR images. METHODS: First, in 119 pediatric patients with primary and secondary tumors, we used 14 diagnostic criteria to compare the accuracy of several MR sequences: unenhanced T2-weighted fast spin-echo imaging; unenhanced diffusion-weighted imaging; and-before and after gadolinium chelate contrast enhancement-T1-weighted 3-dimensional spoiled gradient echo LAVA (liver acquisition with volume acquisition) imaging. Next, in a subset of 36 patients who had undergone (18)F-FDG PET within 3 wk of MRI, we fused the PET images with the unenhanced T2-weighted MR images (unenhanced (18)F-FDG PET/MRI) and the enhanced T1-weighted MR images (enhanced (18)F-FDG PET/MRI). Using the McNemar test, we compared the accuracy of the two types of fused images using the 14 diagnostic criteria. We also evaluated the concordance between (18)F-FDG avidity and gadolinium chelate enhancement. The standard of reference was histopathologic results, surgical notes, and follow-up imaging. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in diagnostic accuracy between the unenhanced and enhanced MR images. Accordingly, there was no significant difference in diagnostic accuracy between the unenhanced and enhanced (18)F-FDG PET/MR images. (18)F-FDG avidity and gadolinium chelate enhancement were concordant in 30 of the 36 patients and 106 of their 123 tumors. CONCLUSION:Gadolinium chelate administration is not necessary for accurate diagnostic characterization of most solid pediatric malignancies on (18)F-FDG PET/MR images, with the possible exception of focal liver lesions.
Authors: Marco Armbruster; Steven Sourbron; Alexander Haug; Christoph J Zech; Michael Ingrisch; Christoph J Auernhammer; Konstantin Nikolaou; Philipp M Paprottka; Carsten Rist; Maximilian F Reiser; Wieland H Sommer Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2014-01 Impact factor: 6.016
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: Franz Wolfgang Hirsch; Bernhard Sattler; Ina Sorge; Lars Kurch; Adrian Viehweger; Lutz Ritter; Peter Werner; Thies Jochimsen; Henryk Barthel; Uta Bierbach; Holger Till; Osama Sabri; Regine Kluge Journal: Pediatr Radiol Date: 2013-01-11
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