PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to conduct a prospective pilot study comparing the diagnostic performance of MRI alone and F-FDG simultaneous PET/MRI using a diuresis protocol in bladder cancer patients. METHODS: Twenty-two bladder cancer patients underwent F-FDG PET/MRI, using intravenous furosemide and oral hydration for bladder clearance. A radiologist scored probability of tumor in 3 locations (urinary bladder, pelvic lymph nodes, nonnodal pelvis) using 1- to 3-point scale (1 = negative, 2 = equivocal, 3 = definite tumor). A nuclear medicine physician reviewed fused PET/MRI images, after which scores were reassigned based on combined findings. Follow-up pathologic and imaging data served as reference. Performances of MRI alone and PET/MRI were compared. RESULTS: Of these patients, 82%, 38%, and 18% were positive for bladder, pelvic nodal, and nonnodal pelvic tumor, respectively. At a score of 3, PET/MRI exhibited greater accuracy for detection of bladder tumor (86% vs 77%), metastatic pelvic lymph nodes (95% vs 76%), and nonnodal pelvic malignancy (100% vs 91%). In the bladder, PET changed the level of suspicion in 36% of patients (50% increased suspicion, 50% decreased suspicion), with 75% of these changes deemed correct based on reference standard. For pelvic lymph nodes, PET changed suspicion in 52% (36% increase, 64% decrease), with 95% of changes deemed correct. For nonnodal pelvis, PET changed suspicion in 9% (100% increase), with 100% deemed correct. CONCLUSIONS: Additional PET information helped to appropriately determine level of suspicion in multiple anatomic sites for otherwise equivocal findings on MRI alone. Although requiring larger studies, findings suggest a possible role for simultaneous PET/MRI to assist bladder cancer management.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to conduct a prospective pilot study comparing the diagnostic performance of MRI alone and F-FDG simultaneous PET/MRI using a diuresis protocol in bladder cancerpatients. METHODS: Twenty-two bladder cancerpatients underwent F-FDG PET/MRI, using intravenous furosemide and oral hydration for bladder clearance. A radiologist scored probability of tumor in 3 locations (urinary bladder, pelvic lymph nodes, nonnodal pelvis) using 1- to 3-point scale (1 = negative, 2 = equivocal, 3 = definite tumor). A nuclear medicine physician reviewed fused PET/MRI images, after which scores were reassigned based on combined findings. Follow-up pathologic and imaging data served as reference. Performances of MRI alone and PET/MRI were compared. RESULTS: Of these patients, 82%, 38%, and 18% were positive for bladder, pelvic nodal, and nonnodal pelvic tumor, respectively. At a score of 3, PET/MRI exhibited greater accuracy for detection of bladder tumor (86% vs 77%), metastatic pelvic lymph nodes (95% vs 76%), and nonnodal pelvic malignancy (100% vs 91%). In the bladder, PET changed the level of suspicion in 36% of patients (50% increased suspicion, 50% decreased suspicion), with 75% of these changes deemed correct based on reference standard. For pelvic lymph nodes, PET changed suspicion in 52% (36% increase, 64% decrease), with 95% of changes deemed correct. For nonnodal pelvis, PET changed suspicion in 9% (100% increase), with 100% deemed correct. CONCLUSIONS: Additional PET information helped to appropriately determine level of suspicion in multiple anatomic sites for otherwise equivocal findings on MRI alone. Although requiring larger studies, findings suggest a possible role for simultaneous PET/MRI to assist bladder cancer management.
Authors: Cornelia B Brendle; Holger Schmidt; Sabrina Fleischer; Uli H Braeuning; Christina A Pfannenberg; Nina F Schwenzer Journal: Radiology Date: 2013-05-08 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Arjun V Balar; William C Huang; Kimberly Jackson; Kent P Friedman Journal: Clin Nucl Med Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 7.794
Authors: David A Green; Matthieu Durand; Naveen Gumpeni; Michael Rink; Eugene K Cha; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Douglas S Scherr; Shahrokh F Shariat Journal: BJU Int Date: 2012-04-13 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Matthias Eiber; Axel Martinez-Möller; Michael Souvatzoglou; Konstantin Holzapfel; Anja Pickhard; Dennys Löffelbein; Ivan Santi; Ernst J Rummeny; Sibylle Ziegler; Markus Schwaiger; Stephan G Nekolla; Ambros J Beer Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2011-06-18 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: V Hechler; M Rink; D Beyersdorff; M Beer; A J Beer; V Panebianco; M Pecoraro; C Bolenz; G Salomon Journal: Urologe A Date: 2019-12 Impact factor: 0.639
Authors: Michał Frączek; Hubert Kamecki; Anna Kamecka; Roman Sosnowski; Katarzyna Sklinda; Marcin Czarniecki; Leszek Królicki; Jerzy Walecki Journal: Transl Androl Urol Date: 2018-10
Authors: Antti Salminen; Ivan Jambor; Harri Merisaari; Otto Ettala; Johanna Virtanen; Ilmari Koskinen; Erik Veskimae; Jukka Sairanen; Pekka Taimen; Jukka Kemppainen; Heikki Minn; Peter J Boström Journal: Cancer Imaging Date: 2018-08-02 Impact factor: 3.909
Authors: Vincenzo Cuccurullo; Giuseppe Danilo Di Stasio; Francesco Manti; Pierpaolo Arcuri; Rocco Damiano; Giuseppe Lucio Cascini Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2021-05-11