Literature DB >> 26843433

Standardized Uptake Values from PET/MRI in Metastatic Breast Cancer: An Organ-based Comparison With PET/CT.

Akshat C Pujara1, Roy A Raad1,2, Fabio Ponzo1,2, Carolyn Wassong1,3, James S Babb1,4, Linda Moy1,3,4, Amy N Melsaether1,3,4.   

Abstract

Quantitative standardized uptake values (SUVs) from fluorine-18 (18F) fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) are commonly used to evaluate the extent of disease and response to treatment in breast cancer patients. Recently, PET/magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has been shown to qualitatively detect metastases from various primary cancers with similar sensitivity to PET/CT. However, quantitative validation of PET/MRI requires assessing the reliability of SUVs from MR attenuation correction (MRAC) relative to CT attenuation correction (CTAC). The purpose of this retrospective study was to assess the utility of PET/MRI-derived SUVs in breast cancer patients by testing the hypothesis that SUVs derived from MRAC correlate well with those from CTAC. Between August 2012 and May 2013, 35 breast cancer patients (age 37-78 years, 1 man) underwent clinical 18F-FDG PET/CT followed by PET/MRI. One hundred seventy metastases were seen in 21 of 35 patients; metastases to bone in 16 patients, to liver in seven patients, and to nonaxillary lymph nodes in eight patients were sufficient for statistical analysis on an organ-specific per patient basis. SUVs in the most FDG-avid metastasis per organ per patient from PET/CT and PET/MRI were measured and compared using Pearson's correlations. Correlations between CTAC- and MRAC-derived SUVmax and SUVmean in 31 metastases to bone, liver, and nonaxillary lymph nodes were strong overall (ρ = 0.80, 0.81). SUVmax and SUVmean correlations were also strong on an organ-specific basis in 16 bone metastases (ρ = 0.76, 0.74), seven liver metastases (ρ = 0.85, 0.83), and eight nonaxillary lymph node metastases (ρ = 0.95, 0.91). These strong organ-specific correlations between SUVs from PET/CT and PET/MRI in breast cancer metastases support the use of SUVs from PET/MRI for quantitation of 18F-FDG activity.
© 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  PET/MRI; SUV; attenuation correction; breast cancer; hybrid imaging

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26843433      PMCID: PMC4915070          DOI: 10.1111/tbj.12569

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Breast J        ISSN: 1075-122X            Impact factor:   2.431


  42 in total

1.  Magnetic resonance imaging-guided attenuation and scatter corrections in three-dimensional brain positron emission tomography.

Authors:  Habib Zaidi; Marie-Louise Montandon; Daniel O Slosman
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 4.071

2.  Dual time point fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography: a potential method to differentiate malignancy from inflammation and normal tissue in the head and neck.

Authors:  R Hustinx; R J Smith; F Benard; D I Rosenthal; M Machtay; L A Farber; A Alavi
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med       Date:  1999-10

3.  Comparison of whole-body PET/CT and PET/MRI in breast cancer patients: lesion detection and quantitation of 18F-deoxyglucose uptake in lesions and in normal organ tissues.

Authors:  Leonardo Pace; Emanuele Nicolai; Angelo Luongo; Marco Aiello; Onofrio A Catalano; Andrea Soricelli; Marco Salvatore
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  2013-11-23       Impact factor: 3.528

4.  Detection of hepatic metastases using dual-time-point FDG PET/CT scans in patients with colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Jeong Won Lee; Seok-Ki Kim; Sang Mi Lee; Seung Hwan Moon; Tae-Sung Kim
Journal:  Mol Imaging Biol       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 3.488

5.  Comparative assessment of methods for estimating tumor volume and standardized uptake value in (18)F-FDG PET.

Authors:  Perrine Tylski; Simon Stute; Nicolas Grotus; Kaya Doyeux; Sébastien Hapdey; Isabelle Gardin; Bruno Vanderlinden; Irène Buvat
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2010-01-15       Impact factor: 10.057

6.  Standardized uptake values for [¹⁸F] FDG in normal organ tissues: comparison of whole-body PET/CT and PET/MRI.

Authors:  Philipp Heusch; Christian Buchbender; Karsten Beiderwellen; Felix Nensa; Verena Hartung-Knemeyer; Thomas C Lauenstein; Andreas Bockisch; Michael Forsting; Gerald Antoch; Till A Heusner
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  2013-02-08       Impact factor: 3.528

7.  Comparison of standardized uptake values in normal structures between PET/CT and PET/MRI in an oncology patient population.

Authors:  Sharif Kershah; Sasan Partovi; Bryan J Traughber; Raymond F Muzic; Mark D Schluchter; James K O'Donnell; Peter Faulhaber
Journal:  Mol Imaging Biol       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 3.488

8.  Reference range for intrapatient variability in blood-pool and liver SUV for 18F-FDG PET.

Authors:  Raef R Boktor; Gregory Walker; Roderick Stacey; Samuel Gledhill; Alexander G Pitman
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2013-03-19       Impact factor: 10.057

9.  Non-small-cell lung cancer resectability: diagnostic value of PET/MR.

Authors:  Francesco Fraioli; Nicholas J Screaton; Samuel M Janes; Thida Win; Leon Menezes; Irfan Kayani; Rizwan Syed; Fulvio Zaccagna; Celia O'Meara; Anna Barnes; Jamshed B Bomanji; Shonit Punwani; Ashley M Groves
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2014-08-15       Impact factor: 9.236

10.  Detection and quantification of focal uptake in head and neck tumours: (18)F-FDG PET/MR versus PET/CT.

Authors:  Arthur Varoquaux; Olivier Rager; Antoine Poncet; Bénédicte M A Delattre; Osman Ratib; Christoph D Becker; Pavel Dulguerov; Nicolas Dulguerov; Habib Zaidi; Minerva Becker
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2013-10-10       Impact factor: 9.236

View more
  8 in total

1.  Measuring Glucose Uptake in Primary Invasive Breast Cancer Using Simultaneous Time-of-Flight Breast PET/MRI: A Method Comparison Study with Prone PET/CT.

Authors:  Amy M Fowler; Manoj Kumar; Leah Henze Bancroft; Kelley Salem; Jacob M Johnson; Jillian Karow; Scott B Perlman; Tyler J Bradshaw; Samuel A Hurley; Alan B McMillan; Roberta M Strigel
Journal:  Radiol Imaging Cancer       Date:  2021-01-15

Review 2.  Clinical PET-MR Imaging in Breast Cancer and Lung Cancer.

Authors:  Samuel L Rice; Kent P Friedman
Journal:  PET Clin       Date:  2016-10

Review 3.  Breast PET/MR Imaging.

Authors:  Amy Melsaether; Linda Moy
Journal:  Radiol Clin North Am       Date:  2017-02-01       Impact factor: 2.303

4.  Assessment of Aggressiveness of Breast Cancer Using Simultaneous 18F-FDG-PET and DCE-MRI: Preliminary Observation.

Authors:  Nathaniel E Margolis; Linda Moy; Eric E Sigmund; Melanie Freed; Jason McKellop; Amy N Melsaether; Sungheon Gene Kim
Journal:  Clin Nucl Med       Date:  2016-08       Impact factor: 7.794

5.  Comparison of Whole-Body (18)F FDG PET/MR Imaging and Whole-Body (18)F FDG PET/CT in Terms of Lesion Detection and Radiation Dose in Patients with Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Amy N Melsaether; Roy A Raad; Akshat C Pujara; Fabio D Ponzo; Kristine M Pysarenko; Komal Jhaveri; James S Babb; Eric E Sigmund; Sungheon G Kim; Linda A Moy
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2016-03-29       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  PET/MR in invasive ductal breast cancer: correlation between imaging markers and histological phenotype.

Authors:  Onofrio Antonio Catalano; Gary Lloyd Horn; Alberto Signore; Carlo Iannace; Maria Lepore; Mark Vangel; Angelo Luongo; Marco Catalano; Constance Lehman; Marco Salvatore; Andrea Soricelli; Ciprian Catana; Umar Mahmood; Bruce Robert Rosen
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2017-02-16       Impact factor: 7.640

7.  Added value of dedicated axillary hybrid 18F-FDG PET/MRI for improved axillary nodal staging in clinically node-positive breast cancer patients: a feasibility study.

Authors:  Thiemo J A van Nijnatten; B Goorts; S Vöö; M de Boer; L F S Kooreman; E M Heuts; J E Wildberger; F M Mottaghy; M B I Lobbes; M L Smidt
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2017-09-14       Impact factor: 9.236

8.  Diagnostic performance of PET/computed tomography versus PET/MRI and diffusion-weighted imaging in the N- and M-staging of breast cancer patients.

Authors:  Cornelis Maarten de Mooij; Inés Sunen; Cristina Mitea; Ulrich C Lalji; Sigrid Vanwetswinkel; Marjolein L Smidt; Thiemo J A van Nijnatten
Journal:  Nucl Med Commun       Date:  2020-10       Impact factor: 1.698

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.