Benedikt M Schaarschmidt1,2, Johannes Grueneisen3, Martin Metzenmacher4, Benedikt Gomez5, Thomas Gauler6, Christian Roesel7, Philipp Heusch8, Verena Ruhlmann5, Lale Umutlu3, Gerald Antoch8, Christian Buchbender8. 1. Medical Faculty, Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Dusseldorf, Moorenstr. 5, 40225, Duesseldorf, Germany. Benedikt.Schaarschmidt@med.uni-duesseldorf.de. 2. Medical Faculty, Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology and Neuroradiology, University Duisburg-Essen, D-45147, Essen, Germany. Benedikt.Schaarschmidt@med.uni-duesseldorf.de. 3. Medical Faculty, Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology and Neuroradiology, University Duisburg-Essen, D-45147, Essen, Germany. 4. Medical Faculty, Department of Medical Oncology, University Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany. 5. Medical Faculty, Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Duisburg-Essen, D-45147, Essen, Germany. 6. Medical Faculty, Radiation and Tumour Clinic, University Duisburg-Essen, D-45147, Essen, Germany. 7. Ruhrlandklinik, Thoracic Surgery and Endoscopy, University Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany. 8. Medical Faculty, Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Dusseldorf, Moorenstr. 5, 40225, Duesseldorf, Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether differences in thoracic tumour staging between 18F-FDG PET/CT and PET/MR imaging lead to different therapeutic decisions in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Seventy-seven NSCLC patients that underwent whole-body 18F-FDG PET/CT from the base of skull to the upper thighs and thoracic PET/MR were enrolled in this retrospective study. Thoracic PET/CT and PET/MR images were staged according to the 7th edition of the AJCC staging manual. Staging results of both modalities were discussed separately in a simulated interdisciplinary tumour board and therapeutic decisions based on both imaging modalities were recorded. Descriptive statistics were used to compare the results and reasons for changes in the therapeutic decision were investigated. RESULTS: Staging results differed in 35 % of patients (27 patients) between thoracic PET/CT and PET/MR. Differences were detected when assessing the T-stage in 18 % (n = 14), the N-stage in 23 % (n = 18), and the M-stage in 1 % (n = 1). However, patient therapy management was changed in only six patients (8 %). CONCLUSION: Despite the variability of thoracic 18F-FDG PET/CT and PET/MR in TNM-staging, both modalities lead to comparable therapeutic decisions in patients suffering from NSCLC. Hence, 18F-FDG PET/MR can be considered an possible alternative to 18F-FDG PET/CT for clinical NSCLC staging. KEY POINTS: • PET/CT and PET/MR provide comparable results in early stages in NSCLC • Clinical impact of different staging results has not been investigated • PET/CT and PET/MR lead to comparable therapeutic decisions • PET/MR can be considered an alternative to PET/CT for NSCLC staging.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether differences in thoracic tumour staging between 18F-FDG PET/CT and PET/MR imaging lead to different therapeutic decisions in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Seventy-seven NSCLCpatients that underwent whole-body 18F-FDG PET/CT from the base of skull to the upper thighs and thoracic PET/MR were enrolled in this retrospective study. Thoracic PET/CT and PET/MR images were staged according to the 7th edition of the AJCC staging manual. Staging results of both modalities were discussed separately in a simulated interdisciplinary tumour board and therapeutic decisions based on both imaging modalities were recorded. Descriptive statistics were used to compare the results and reasons for changes in the therapeutic decision were investigated. RESULTS: Staging results differed in 35 % of patients (27 patients) between thoracic PET/CT and PET/MR. Differences were detected when assessing the T-stage in 18 % (n = 14), the N-stage in 23 % (n = 18), and the M-stage in 1 % (n = 1). However, patient therapy management was changed in only six patients (8 %). CONCLUSION: Despite the variability of thoracic 18F-FDG PET/CT and PET/MR in TNM-staging, both modalities lead to comparable therapeutic decisions in patients suffering from NSCLC. Hence, 18F-FDG PET/MR can be considered an possible alternative to 18F-FDG PET/CT for clinical NSCLC staging. KEY POINTS: • PET/CT and PET/MR provide comparable results in early stages in NSCLC • Clinical impact of different staging results has not been investigated • PET/CT and PET/MR lead to comparable therapeutic decisions • PET/MR can be considered an alternative to PET/CT for NSCLC staging.
Authors: Benedikt Schaarschmidt; Christian Buchbender; Benedikt Gomez; Christian Rubbert; Florian Hild; Jens Köhler; Johannes Grueneisen; Henning Reis; Verena Ruhlmann; Axel Wetter; Harald H Quick; Gerald Antoch; Philipp Heusch Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2015-04-08 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Lino M Sawicki; Johannes Grueneisen; Christian Buchbender; Benedikt M Schaarschmidt; Benedikt Gomez; Verena Ruhlmann; Lale Umutlu; Gerald Antoch; Philipp Heusch Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2015-10-29 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Roy A Raad; Kent P Friedman; Laura Heacock; Fabio Ponzo; Amy Melsaether; Hersh Chandarana Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2015-07-20 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Lino M Sawicki; Johannes Grueneisen; Christian Buchbender; Benedikt M Schaarschmidt; Benedikt Gomez; Verena Ruhlmann; Axel Wetter; Lale Umutlu; Gerald Antoch; Philipp Heusch Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2016-01-07 Impact factor: 10.057
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
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: 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: 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
Authors: Sofia C Vaz; Judit A Adam; Roberto C Delgado Bolton; Pierre Vera; Wouter van Elmpt; Ken Herrmann; Rodney J Hicks; Yolande Lievens; Andrea Santos; Heiko Schöder; Bernard Dubray; Dimitris Visvikis; Esther G C Troost; Lioe-Fee de Geus-Oei Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2022-01-20 Impact factor: 6.901
Authors: Ferdinand Seith; Holger Schmidt; Sergios Gatidis; Ilja Bezrukov; Christina Schraml; Christina Pfannenberg; Christian la Fougère; Konstantin Nikolaou; Nina Schwenzer Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-05-31 Impact factor: 3.240