Lino M Sawicki1, Johannes Grueneisen2, Christian Buchbender3, Benedikt M Schaarschmidt3, Benedikt Gomez4, Verena Ruhlmann4, Axel Wetter2, Lale Umutlu2, Gerald Antoch3, Philipp Heusch3. 1. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Dusseldorf, Dusseldorf, Germany Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology and Neuroradiology, University Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany; and linomorris.sawicki@med.uni-duesseldorf.de. 2. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology and Neuroradiology, University Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany; and. 3. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Dusseldorf, Dusseldorf, Germany. 4. Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany.
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Our objective was to compare (18)F-FDG PET/MRI (performed using a contrast-enhanced T1-weighted fat-suppressed volume-interpolated breath-hold examination [VIBE]) with (18)F-FDG PET/CT for detecting and characterizing lung lesions in oncologic patients. METHODS: In 121 oncologic patients with 241 lung lesions, PET/MRI was performed after PET/CT in a single-injection protocol (260 ± 58 MBq of (18)F-FDG). The detection rates were computed for MRI, the PET component of PET/CT, and the PET component of PET/MRI in relation to the CT component of PET/CT. Wilcoxon testing was used to assess differences in lesion contrast (4-point scale) and size between morphologic datasets and differences in image quality (4-point scale), SUVmean, SUVmax, and characterization (benign/malignant) between PET/MRI and PET/CT. Correlation was determined using the Pearson coefficient (r) for SUV and size and the Spearman rank coefficient (ρ) for contrast. RESULTS: The detection rates for MRI, the PET component of PET/CT, and the PET component of PET/MRI were 66.8%, 42.7%, and 42.3%, respectively. There was a strong correlation in size (r= 0.98) and SUV (r= 0.91) and a moderate correlation in contrast (ρ = 0.48). Image quality was better for PET/CT than for PET/MRI (P< 0.001). Lesion measurements were smaller for MRI than for CT (P< 0.001). SUVmax and SUVmean were significantly higher for PET/MRI than for PET/CT (P< 0.001 each). There was no significant difference in lesion contrast (P= 0.11) or characterization (P= 0.076). CONCLUSION: In the detection and characterization of lung lesions 10 mm or larger, (18)F-FDG PET/MRI and (18)F-FDG PET/CT perform comparably. Lesion size, SUV and characterization correlate strongly between the two modalities. However, the overall detection rate of PET/MRI remains inferior to that of PET/CT because of the limited ability of MRI to detect lesions smaller than 10 mm. Thus, thoracic staging with PET/MRI bears a risk of missing small lung metastases.
UNLABELLED: Our objective was to compare (18)F-FDG PET/MRI (performed using a contrast-enhanced T1-weighted fat-suppressed volume-interpolated breath-hold examination [VIBE]) with (18)F-FDG PET/CT for detecting and characterizing lung lesions in oncologic patients. METHODS: In 121 oncologic patients with 241 lung lesions, PET/MRI was performed after PET/CT in a single-injection protocol (260 ± 58 MBq of (18)F-FDG). The detection rates were computed for MRI, the PET component of PET/CT, and the PET component of PET/MRI in relation to the CT component of PET/CT. Wilcoxon testing was used to assess differences in lesion contrast (4-point scale) and size between morphologic datasets and differences in image quality (4-point scale), SUVmean, SUVmax, and characterization (benign/malignant) between PET/MRI and PET/CT. Correlation was determined using the Pearson coefficient (r) for SUV and size and the Spearman rank coefficient (ρ) for contrast. RESULTS: The detection rates for MRI, the PET component of PET/CT, and the PET component of PET/MRI were 66.8%, 42.7%, and 42.3%, respectively. There was a strong correlation in size (r= 0.98) and SUV (r= 0.91) and a moderate correlation in contrast (ρ = 0.48). Image quality was better for PET/CT than for PET/MRI (P< 0.001). Lesion measurements were smaller for MRI than for CT (P< 0.001). SUVmax and SUVmean were significantly higher for PET/MRI than for PET/CT (P< 0.001 each). There was no significant difference in lesion contrast (P= 0.11) or characterization (P= 0.076). CONCLUSION: In the detection and characterization of lung lesions 10 mm or larger, (18)F-FDG PET/MRI and (18)F-FDG PET/CT perform comparably. Lesion size, SUV and characterization correlate strongly between the two modalities. However, the overall detection rate of PET/MRI remains inferior to that of PET/CT because of the limited ability of MRI to detect lesions smaller than 10 mm. Thus, thoracic staging with PET/MRI bears a risk of missing small lung metastases.
Authors: Vivek Kalia; Doris G Leung; Darryl B Sneag; Filippo Del Grande; John A Carrino Journal: Semin Musculoskelet Radiol Date: 2017-08-03 Impact factor: 1.777
Authors: Lino M Sawicki; Cornelius Deuschl; Karsten Beiderwellen; Verena Ruhlmann; Thorsten D Poeppel; Philipp Heusch; Harald Lahner; Dagmar Führer; Andreas Bockisch; Ken Herrmann; Michael Forsting; Gerald Antoch; Lale Umutlu Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2017-04-24 Impact factor: 5.315
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: Pierpaolo Biondetti; Mark G Vangel; Rita M Lahoud; Felipe S Furtado; Bruce R Rosen; David Groshar; Lina G Canamaque; Lale Umutlu; Eric W Zhang; Umar Mahmood; Subba R Digumarthy; Jo-Anne O Shepard; Onofrio A Catalano Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2021-01-07 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: Lino M Sawicki; Julian Kirchner; Carolin Buddensieck; Christina Antke; Tim Ullrich; Lars Schimmöller; Johannes Boos; Christoph Schleich; Benedikt M Schaarschmidt; Christian Buchbender; Philipp Heusch; Robert Rabenalt; Peter Albers; Gerald Antoch; Hans-Wilhelm Müller; Hubertus Hautzel Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2019-03-16 Impact factor: 9.236
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: Benedikt M Schaarschmidt; Johannes Grueneisen; Martin Metzenmacher; Benedikt Gomez; Thomas Gauler; Christian Roesel; Philipp Heusch; Verena Ruhlmann; Lale Umutlu; Gerald Antoch; Christian Buchbender Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2016-05-14 Impact factor: 5.315