Martin W Huellner1, Felipe de Galiza Barbosa2, Lars Husmann2, Carsten M Pietsch2, Cäcilia E Mader2, Irene A Burger2, Paul Stolzmann3, Gaspar Delso4, Thomas Frauenfelder5, Gustav K von Schulthess2, Patrick Veit-Haibach6. 1. Division of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Medical Radiology, University Hospital Zurich/University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland Division of Neuroradiology, Department of Medical Radiology, University Hospital Zurich/University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland martin.huellner@usz.ch. 2. Division of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Medical Radiology, University Hospital Zurich/University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. 3. Division of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Medical Radiology, University Hospital Zurich/University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland Division of Neuroradiology, Department of Medical Radiology, University Hospital Zurich/University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. 4. Division of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Medical Radiology, University Hospital Zurich/University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland GE Healthcare, Waukesha, Wisconsin; and. 5. Division of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Department of Medical Radiology, University Hospital Zurich/University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. 6. Division of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Medical Radiology, University Hospital Zurich/University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland Division of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Department of Medical Radiology, University Hospital Zurich/University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Abstract
UNLABELLED: The purpose of this study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of whole-body unenhanced PET/MR with that of PET/CT in determining the stage of non-small cell lung cancer. METHODS: This study was approved by the institutional review board and by national government authorities. Forty-two consecutive patients referred for the initial staging of non-small cell lung cancer underwent whole-body imaging with a sequential trimodality PET/CT/MR system. PET/MR and PET/CT datasets were evaluated separately, and a TNM stage was assigned on the basis of the image analysis. Nodal stations in the chest were identified according to the mapping system of the American Thoracic Society. The standard of reference was histopathology for the tumor stage in 20 subjects, for the nodal stage in 22 patients, and for extrathoracic metastases in 5 subjects. All other lesions were confirmed by at least 1 different imaging method. A Wilcoxon signed-ranks test was used for comparing PET/MR with PET/CT. RESULTS: PET/MR did not provide additional information compared with PET/CT. The diagnostic accuracy of both imaging modalities was equal (T staging, P = 0.177; N staging, P = 0.114; M staging, P = 0.465), however, with advantages for PET/CT by trend. In the subgroup with histopathologic confirmation of T and N stages, the situation was similar (T staging, P = 0.705; N staging, P = 0.334). CONCLUSION: This study indicates that PET/MR using a fast MR protocol does not improve the diagnostic accuracy of the staging of non-small cell lung cancer.
UNLABELLED: The purpose of this study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of whole-body unenhanced PET/MR with that of PET/CT in determining the stage of non-small cell lung cancer. METHODS: This study was approved by the institutional review board and by national government authorities. Forty-two consecutive patients referred for the initial staging of non-small cell lung cancer underwent whole-body imaging with a sequential trimodality PET/CT/MR system. PET/MR and PET/CT datasets were evaluated separately, and a TNM stage was assigned on the basis of the image analysis. Nodal stations in the chest were identified according to the mapping system of the American Thoracic Society. The standard of reference was histopathology for the tumor stage in 20 subjects, for the nodal stage in 22 patients, and for extrathoracic metastases in 5 subjects. All other lesions were confirmed by at least 1 different imaging method. A Wilcoxon signed-ranks test was used for comparing PET/MR with PET/CT. RESULTS: PET/MR did not provide additional information compared with PET/CT. The diagnostic accuracy of both imaging modalities was equal (T staging, P = 0.177; N staging, P = 0.114; M staging, P = 0.465), however, with advantages for PET/CT by trend. In the subgroup with histopathologic confirmation of T and N stages, the situation was similar (T staging, P = 0.705; N staging, P = 0.334). CONCLUSION: This study indicates that PET/MR using a fast MR protocol does not improve the diagnostic accuracy of the staging of non-small cell lung cancer.
Authors: Paul Flechsig; Ramin Rastgoo; Clemens Kratochwil; Ole Martin; Tim Holland-Letz; Alexander Harms; Hans-Ulrich Kauczor; Uwe Haberkorn; Frederik L Giesel Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2018-12 Impact factor: 3.488
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: Julian Kirchner; Lino M Sawicki; Felix Nensa; Benedikt M Schaarschmidt; Henning Reis; Marc Ingenwerth; Simon Bogner; Clemens Aigner; Christian Buchbender; Lale Umutlu; Gerald Antoch; Ken Herrmann; Philipp Heusch Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2018-08-03 Impact factor: 9.236
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