Beomsik Kang1, Jeong Min Lee1,2, Yong Sub Song1, Sungmin Woo1, Bo Yun Hur3, Ju Hyeon Jeon1, Jin Chul Paeng4. 1. 1 Department of Radiology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. 2. 2 Institute of Radiation Medicine, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Institute of Radiation Medicine, Seoul National University College of Medicine, 101 Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul, 110-744, Korea. 3. 3 Department of Radiology, SMG-SNU Boramae Medical Center, Seoul, Korea. 4. 4 Department of Nuclear Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the added clinical value of PET/MRI compared with conventional contrast-enhanced MDCT (CECT) alone in the evaluation of patients with colorectal cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study population comprised 51 patients with colorectal cancer who underwent (18)F-FDG PET/MRI and CECT within a 90-day interval between October 2012 and August 2013. Two reviewers in consensus evaluated whether PET/MRI added value to CECT for lesion detection and characterization and assessed whether changes in treatment strategies were made. The malignancy probability of each lesion was assessed on a 5-point scale. ROC analyses were performed with histopathologic findings, imaging, and clinical follow-up as the reference standards. Two reviewers evaluated the presence or absence of pulmonary metastatic nodules on PET/MR images that had been detected on chest CT scans. RESULTS: PET/MRI added value to CECT for 14 of 51 patients (27.5%) in terms of better characterization (12/51 [23.5%]) and additional detection (2/51 [3.9%]) of extracolonic lesions. The additional information from PET/MRI led to a change in treatment strategy for 11 of 51 (21.6%) patients. ROC analyses showed that PET/MRI was significantly superior to CT in depicting colorectal cancer (p < 0.05). The rate of detection of pulmonary metastatic nodules with PET/MRI was 52.9% (9/17). CONCLUSION: Integrated whole-body PET/MRI added value to CECT in the detection of metastatic lesions and characterization of indeterminate lesions, albeit with limited performance for small pulmonary metastatic nodules. The results suggest that PET/MRI may aid in the selection of more appropriate treatment strategies for patients with colorectal cancer.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the added clinical value of PET/MRI compared with conventional contrast-enhanced MDCT (CECT) alone in the evaluation of patients with colorectal cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study population comprised 51 patients with colorectal cancer who underwent (18)F-FDG PET/MRI and CECT within a 90-day interval between October 2012 and August 2013. Two reviewers in consensus evaluated whether PET/MRI added value to CECT for lesion detection and characterization and assessed whether changes in treatment strategies were made. The malignancy probability of each lesion was assessed on a 5-point scale. ROC analyses were performed with histopathologic findings, imaging, and clinical follow-up as the reference standards. Two reviewers evaluated the presence or absence of pulmonary metastatic nodules on PET/MR images that had been detected on chest CT scans. RESULTS: PET/MRI added value to CECT for 14 of 51 patients (27.5%) in terms of better characterization (12/51 [23.5%]) and additional detection (2/51 [3.9%]) of extracolonic lesions. The additional information from PET/MRI led to a change in treatment strategy for 11 of 51 (21.6%) patients. ROC analyses showed that PET/MRI was significantly superior to CT in depicting colorectal cancer (p < 0.05). The rate of detection of pulmonary metastatic nodules with PET/MRI was 52.9% (9/17). CONCLUSION: Integrated whole-body PET/MRI added value to CECT in the detection of metastatic lesions and characterization of indeterminate lesions, albeit with limited performance for small pulmonary metastatic nodules. The results suggest that PET/MRI may aid in the selection of more appropriate treatment strategies for patients with colorectal cancer.
Authors: Onofrio Antonio Catalano; Vincent Wu; Umar Mahmood; Alberto Signore; Mark Vangel; Andrea Soricelli; Marco Salvatore; Debra Gervais; Bruce R Rosen Journal: Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2018-02-05
Authors: Fulvio Zaccagna; James T Grist; Surrin S Deen; Ramona Woitek; Laura Mt Lechermann; Mary A McLean; Bristi Basu; Ferdia A Gallagher Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2018-01-19 Impact factor: 3.039
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: 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: 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