Wendy Atkinson1, Ciprian Catana1, Jeremy S Abramson2, Grae Arabasz1, Shanaugh McDermott3, Onofrio Catalano1, Victorine Muse4, Michael A Blake3, Jeffrey Barnes2, Martin Shelly3, Ephraim Hochberg2, Bruce R Rosen1, Alexander R Guimaraes5,6,7. 1. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Charlestown, MA, 02129, USA. 2. Division of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, 02114, USA. 3. Division of Abdominal Imaging, Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, 02114, USA. 4. Division of Thoracic Radiology, Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, 02114, USA. 5. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Charlestown, MA, 02129, USA. guimaraa@ohsu.edu. 6. Division of Abdominal Imaging, Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, 02114, USA. guimaraa@ohsu.edu. 7. Division of Body Imaging, Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Oregon Health Sciences University, 3181 SW Sam Jackson Park Rd., Mail Code L340, Portland, OR, 97239, USA. guimaraa@ohsu.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The goal of this study is to evaluate the diagnostic performance of simultaneous FDG-PET/MR including diffusion compared to FDG-PET/CT in patients with lymphoma. METHODS: Eighteen patients with a confirmed diagnosis of non-Hodgkin's (NHL) or Hodgkin's lymphoma (HL) underwent an IRB-approved, single-injection/dual-imaging protocol consisting of a clinical FDG-PET/CT and subsequent FDG-PET/MR scan. PET images from both modalities were reconstructed iteratively. Attenuation correction was performed using low-dose CT data for PET/CT and Dixon-MR sequences for PET/MR. Diffusion-weighted imaging was performed. SUVmax was measured and compared between modalities and the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) using ROI analysis by an experienced radiologist using OsiriX. Strength of correlation between variables was measured using the Pearson correlation coefficient (r p). RESULTS: Of the 18 patients included in this study, 5 had HL and 13 had NHL. The median age was 51 ± 14.8 years. Sixty-five FDG-avid lesions were identified. All FDG-avid lesions were visible with comparable contrast, and therefore initial and follow-up staging was identical between both examinations. SUVmax from FDG-PET/MR [(mean ± sem) (21.3 ± 2.07)] vs. FDG-PET/CT (mean 23.2 ± 2.8) demonstrated a strongly positive correlation [r s = 0.95 (0.94, 0.99); p < 0.0001]. There was no correlation found between ADCmin and SUVmax from FDG-PET/MR [r = 0.17(-0.07, 0.66); p = 0.09]. CONCLUSION: FDG-PET/MR offers an equivalent whole-body staging examination as compared with PET/CT with an improved radiation safety profile in lymphoma patients. Correlation of ADC to SUVmax was weak, understating their lack of equivalence, but not undermining their potential synergy and differing importance.
PURPOSE: The goal of this study is to evaluate the diagnostic performance of simultaneous FDG-PET/MR including diffusion compared to FDG-PET/CT in patients with lymphoma. METHODS: Eighteen patients with a confirmed diagnosis of non-Hodgkin's (NHL) or Hodgkin's lymphoma (HL) underwent an IRB-approved, single-injection/dual-imaging protocol consisting of a clinical FDG-PET/CT and subsequent FDG-PET/MR scan. PET images from both modalities were reconstructed iteratively. Attenuation correction was performed using low-dose CT data for PET/CT and Dixon-MR sequences for PET/MR. Diffusion-weighted imaging was performed. SUVmax was measured and compared between modalities and the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) using ROI analysis by an experienced radiologist using OsiriX. Strength of correlation between variables was measured using the Pearson correlation coefficient (r p). RESULTS: Of the 18 patients included in this study, 5 had HL and 13 had NHL. The median age was 51 ± 14.8 years. Sixty-five FDG-avid lesions were identified. All FDG-avid lesions were visible with comparable contrast, and therefore initial and follow-up staging was identical between both examinations. SUVmax from FDG-PET/MR [(mean ± sem) (21.3 ± 2.07)] vs. FDG-PET/CT (mean 23.2 ± 2.8) demonstrated a strongly positive correlation [r s = 0.95 (0.94, 0.99); p < 0.0001]. There was no correlation found between ADCmin and SUVmax from FDG-PET/MR [r = 0.17(-0.07, 0.66); p = 0.09]. CONCLUSION:FDG-PET/MR offers an equivalent whole-body staging examination as compared with PET/CT with an improved radiation safety profile in lymphomapatients. Correlation of ADC to SUVmax was weak, understating their lack of equivalence, but not undermining their potential synergy and differing importance.
Entities:
Keywords:
Diffusion-weighted imaging; FDG; Lymphoma; PET/MRI; SUV
Authors: Onofrio Antonio Catalano; Vincent Wu; Umar Mahmood; Alberto Signore; Mark Vangel; Andrea Soricelli; Marco Salvatore; Debra Gervais; Bruce R Rosen Journal: Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2018-02-05
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; Cornelius Deuschl; Johannes Grueneisen; Ken Herrmann; Michael Forsting; Philipp Heusch; Gerald Antoch; Lale Umutlu Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2017-02-04 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Krista Elise Suarez-Weiss; Alexander Herold; Debra Gervais; Edwin Palmer; Bárbara Amorim; Joseph D King; Li Weier; Tajmir Shahein; Hanna Bernstine; Liran Domachevsk; Lina Garcia Cañamaque; Lale Umutlu; Ken Herrmann; David Groshar; Onofrio A Catalano Journal: Radiologe Date: 2020-05 Impact factor: 0.635
Authors: M Picardi; C Cavaliere; R Della Pepa; E Nicolai; A Soricelli; C Giordano; N Pugliese; M G Rascato; I Cappuccio; G Campagna; C Cerchione; E Vigliar; G Troncone; M Mascolo; M Franzese; R Castaldo; M Salvatore; F Pane Journal: Ann Hematol Date: 2021-04-28 Impact factor: 3.673
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
Authors: Jorge Daniel Oldan; Amir Hossein Khandani; Julia R Fielding; Ellen Louise Jones; Paola Alvarez Gehrig; Tiffany Matoska Sills; Pinakpani Roy; Weili Lin Journal: World J Nucl Med Date: 2018 Oct-Dec
Authors: Marius E Mayerhoefer; Stephen J Archibald; Christina Messiou; Anton Staudenherz; Dominik Berzaczy; Heiko Schöder Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2019-07-01 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: D L Bailey; B J Pichler; B Gückel; G Antoch; H Barthel; Z M Bhujwalla; S Biskup; S Biswal; M Bitzer; R Boellaard; R F Braren; C Brendle; K Brindle; A Chiti; C la Fougère; R Gillies; V Goh; M Goyen; M Hacker; L Heukamp; G M Knudsen; A M Krackhardt; I Law; J C Morris; K Nikolaou; J Nuyts; A A Ordonez; K Pantel; H H Quick; K Riklund; O Sabri; B Sattler; E G C Troost; M Zaiss; L Zender; Thomas Beyer Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2018-02 Impact factor: 3.488