P Stumpp1, S Purz2, O Sabri2, T Kahn3. 1. Klinik und Poliklinik für Diagnostische und Interventionelle Radiologie, Universitätsklinikum Leipzig AöR, Liebigstrasse 20, 04103, Leipzig, Deutschland. patrick.stumpp@medizin.uni-leipzig.de. 2. Klinik und Poliklinik für Nuklearmedizin, Universitätsklinikum Leipzig, Leipzig, Deutschland. 3. Klinik und Poliklinik für Diagnostische und Interventionelle Radiologie, Universitätsklinikum Leipzig AöR, Liebigstrasse 20, 04103, Leipzig, Deutschland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography ((18)F-FDG-PET/CT) procedure is a cornerstone in the diagnostics of head and neck cancers. Several years ago PET-magnetic resonance imaging (PET/MRI) also became available as an alternative hybrid multimodal imaging method. OBJECTIVE: Does PET/MRI have advantages over PET/CT in the diagnostics of head and neck cancers? MATERIAL AND METHODS: The diagnostic accuracy of the standard imaging methods CT, MRI and PET/CT is depicted according to currently available meta-analyses and studies concerning the use of PET/MRI for these indications are summarized. RESULTS: In all studies published up to now PET/MRI did not show superiority regarding the diagnostic accuracy in head and neck cancers; however, there is some evidence that in the future PET/MRI can contribute to tumor characterization and possibly be used to predict tumor response to therapy with the use of multiparametric imaging. CONCLUSION: Currently, (18)F-FDG-PET/CT is not outperformed by PET/MRI in the diagnostics of head and neck cancers. The additive value of PET/MRI due to the use of multiparametric imaging needs to be investigated in future research.
BACKGROUND: The (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography ((18)F-FDG-PET/CT) procedure is a cornerstone in the diagnostics of head and neck cancers. Several years ago PET-magnetic resonance imaging (PET/MRI) also became available as an alternative hybrid multimodal imaging method. OBJECTIVE: Does PET/MRI have advantages over PET/CT in the diagnostics of head and neck cancers? MATERIAL AND METHODS: The diagnostic accuracy of the standard imaging methods CT, MRI and PET/CT is depicted according to currently available meta-analyses and studies concerning the use of PET/MRI for these indications are summarized. RESULTS: In all studies published up to now PET/MRI did not show superiority regarding the diagnostic accuracy in head and neck cancers; however, there is some evidence that in the future PET/MRI can contribute to tumor characterization and possibly be used to predict tumor response to therapy with the use of multiparametric imaging. CONCLUSION: Currently, (18)F-FDG-PET/CT is not outperformed by PET/MRI in the diagnostics of head and neck cancers. The additive value of PET/MRI due to the use of multiparametric imaging needs to be investigated in future research.
Authors: S Partovi; A Kohan; J L Vercher-Conejero; C Rubbert; S Margevicius; M D Schluchter; C Gaeta; P Faulhaber; M R Robbin Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2014-06-12 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Max Lonneux; Marc Hamoir; Hervé Reychler; Philippe Maingon; Christian Duvillard; Gilles Calais; Boumédiène Bridji; Laurence Digue; Michel Toubeau; Vincent Grégoire Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-02-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Felix P Kuhn; Martin Hüllner; Caecilia E Mader; Nikos Kastrinidis; Gerhard F Huber; Gustav K von Schulthess; Spyros Kollias; Patrick Veit-Haibach Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2014-02-03 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: P S Tofts; G Brix; D L Buckley; J L Evelhoch; E Henderson; M V Knopp; H B Larsson; T Y Lee; N A Mayr; G J Parker; R E Port; J Taylor; R M Weisskoff Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 1999-09 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: D L Bailey; G Antoch; P Bartenstein; H Barthel; A J Beer; S Bisdas; D A Bluemke; R Boellaard; C D Claussen; C Franzius; M Hacker; H Hricak; C la Fougère; B Gückel; S G Nekolla; B J Pichler; S Purz; H H Quick; O Sabri; B Sattler; J Schäfer; H Schmidt; J van den Hoff; S Voss; W Weber; H F Wehrl; T Beyer Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2015-06 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Matthias Gawlitza; Sandra Purz; Klaus Kubiessa; Andreas Boehm; Henryk Barthel; Regine Kluge; Thomas Kahn; Osama Sabri; Patrick Stumpp Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-08-13 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Soo Jin Lee; Hyo Jung Seo; Gi Jeong Cheon; Ji Hoon Kim; E Edmund Kim; Keon Wook Kang; Jin Chul Paeng; June-Key Chung; Dong Soo Lee Journal: Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2013-12-06
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
Authors: Dina V Hingorani; Aaron J Lemieux; Joseph R Acevedo; Heather L Glasgow; Suraj Kedarisetty; Michael A Whitney; Alfredo A Molinolo; Roger Y Tsien; Quyen T Nguyen Journal: Oral Oncol Date: 2017-06-27 Impact factor: 5.337