Literature DB >> 26901021

Assessment of Sequential PET/MRI in Comparison With PET/CT of Pediatric Lymphoma: A Prospective Study.

Andrew C Sher1, Victor Seghers1, Michael J Paldino1, Cristina Dodge1, Ramkumar Krishnamurthy1, Rajesh Krishnamurthy1, Eric M Rohren2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to compare the diagnostic performance of sequential (18)F-FDG PET/MRI (PET/MRI) and (18)F-FDG PET/CT (PET/CT) in a pediatric cohort with lymphoma for lesion detection, lesion classification, and disease staging; quantification of FDG uptake; and radiation dose. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: For this prospective study of 25 pediatric patients with lymphoma, 40 PET/CT and PET/MRI examinations were performed after a single-injection dual-time-point imaging protocol. Lesions detected, lesion classification, Ann Arbor stage, and radiation dose were tabulated for each examination, and statistical evaluations were performed to compare the modalities. Quantification of standardized uptake values (SUVs) was performed for all lesions. All available examinations and clinical history were used as the reference standard.
RESULTS: No statistically significant differences between PET/MRI and PET/CT were observed in lesion detection rates, lesion classification, or Ann Arbor staging. Fifty-four regions of focal uptake were observed on PET/MRI compared with 55 on PET/CT. Both modalities accurately classified 82% of the lesions relative to the reference standard. Disease staging based on PET/MRI was correct for 35 of the 40 studies, and disease staging based on PET/CT was correct for 35 of the 40 studies; there was substantial agreement between the modalities for disease staging (κ = 0.684; p < 0.001). PET SUVs were strongly correlated between PET/CT and PET/MRI (ρ > 0.72), although PET/MRI showed systematically lower SUV measurements. PET/MRI offered an average 45% reduction in radiation dose relative to PET/CT.
CONCLUSION: In a pediatric cohort with lymphoma, sequential PET/MRI showed lesion detection, lesion classification, and Ann Arbor staging comparable to PET/CT. PET/MRI quantification of FDG uptake strongly correlated with PET/CT, but the SUVs were not interchangeable. PET/MRI significantly reduced radiation exposure and is a promising new alternative in the care of pediatric lymphoma patients.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Ann Arbor staging; PET/CT; PET/MRI; pediatric lymphoma; radiation dose

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26901021     DOI: 10.2214/AJR.15.15083

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol        ISSN: 0361-803X            Impact factor:   3.959


  22 in total

1.  Summary of the First ISMRM-SNMMI Workshop on PET/MRI: Applications and Limitations.

Authors:  Thomas A Hope; Zahi A Fayad; Kathryn J Fowler; Dawn Holley; Andrei Iagaru; Alan B McMillan; Patrick Veit-Haiback; Robert J Witte; Greg Zaharchuk; Ciprian Catana
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2019-05-23       Impact factor: 10.057

2.  Importance of whole-body imaging with complete coverage of hands and feet in alveolar rhabdomyosarcoma staging.

Authors:  Monika Scheer; Tobias Dantonello; Peter Brossart; Dagmar Dilloo; Lothar Schweigerer; Simone Feuchtgruber; Monika Sparber-Sauer; Christian Vokuhl; Stefan S Bielack; Thomas Klingebiel; Ewa Koscielniak; Thekla von Kalle
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  2018-01-24

3.  Imaging children suffering from lymphoma: an evaluation of different 18F-FDG PET/MRI protocols compared to whole-body DW-MRI.

Authors:  Julian Kirchner; Cornelius Deuschl; Bernd Schweiger; Ken Herrmann; Michael Forsting; Christian Buchbender; Gerald Antoch; Lale Umutlu
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2017-05-22       Impact factor: 9.236

4.  How PET/MR Can Add Value For Children With Cancer.

Authors:  Heike Daldrup-Link
Journal:  Curr Radiol Rep       Date:  2017-02-21

5.  Whole-body PET/MRI of Pediatric Patients: The Details That Matter.

Authors:  Anuj Pareek; Anne M Muehe; Ashok J Theruvath; Praveen K Gulaka; Sheri L Spunt; Heike E Daldrup-Link
Journal:  J Vis Exp       Date:  2017-12-19       Impact factor: 1.355

Review 6.  PET/MRI: Where might it replace PET/CT?

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

7.  How to Provide Gadolinium-Free PET/MR Cancer Staging of Children and Young Adults in Less than 1 h: the Stanford Approach.

Authors:  Anne M Muehe; Ashok J Theruvath; Lillian Lai; Maryam Aghighi; Andrew Quon; Samantha J Holdsworth; Jia Wang; Sandra Luna-Fineman; Neyssa Marina; Ranjana Advani; Jarrett Rosenberg; Heike E Daldrup-Link
Journal:  Mol Imaging Biol       Date:  2018-04       Impact factor: 3.488

Review 8.  [Hybrid imaging in lymphoma].

Authors:  Marius E Mayerhöfer; Alexander Haug
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2020-05       Impact factor: 0.635

9.  18F-FDG PET/MRI for Staging and Interim Response Assessment in Pediatric and Adolescent Hodgkin Lymphoma: A Prospective Study with 18F-FDG PET/CT as the Reference Standard.

Authors:  Martijn V Verhagen; Leon J Menezes; Deena Neriman; Tom A Watson; Shonit Punwani; Stuart A Taylor; Ananth Shankar; Stephen Daw; Paul D Humphries
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2021-02-19       Impact factor: 10.057

10.  An international expert opinion statement on the utility of PET/MR for imaging of skeletal metastases.

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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.