BACKGROUND: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of PET/MR and PET/CT in patients with suspected occult primary tumors. METHODS: This prospective study was approved by the institutional review board. Sequential PET/CT-MR was performed in 43 patients (22 male subjects; median age, 58 years; range, 20-86 years) referred for suspected occult primary tumors. Patients were assessed with PET/CT and PET/MR for the presence of a primary tumor, lymph node metastases, and distant metastases. Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of PET/CT and PET/MR. RESULT: According to the standard of reference, a primary lesion was found in 14 patients. In 16 patients, the primary lesion remained occult. In the remaining 13 patients, lesions proved to be benign. PET/MR was superior to PET/CT for primary tumor detection (sensitivity/specificity, 0.85/0.97 vs 0.69/0.73; P = 0.020) and comparable to PET/CT for the detection of lymph node metastases (sensitivity/specificity, 0.93/1.00 vs 0.93/0.93; P = 0.157) and distant metastases (sensitivity/specificity, 1.00/0.97 vs 0.82/1.00; P = 0.564). PET/CT tended to misclassify physiologic FDG uptake as malignancy compared with PET/MR (8 patients vs 1 patient). CONCLUSIONS: PET/MR outperforms PET/CT in the workup of suspected occult malignancies. PET/MR may replace PET/CT to improve clinical workflow.
BACKGROUND: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of PET/MR and PET/CT in patients with suspected occult primary tumors. METHODS: This prospective study was approved by the institutional review board. Sequential PET/CT-MR was performed in 43 patients (22 male subjects; median age, 58 years; range, 20-86 years) referred for suspected occult primary tumors. Patients were assessed with PET/CT and PET/MR for the presence of a primary tumor, lymph node metastases, and distant metastases. Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of PET/CT and PET/MR. RESULT: According to the standard of reference, a primary lesion was found in 14 patients. In 16 patients, the primary lesion remained occult. In the remaining 13 patients, lesions proved to be benign. PET/MR was superior to PET/CT for primary tumor detection (sensitivity/specificity, 0.85/0.97 vs 0.69/0.73; P = 0.020) and comparable to PET/CT for the detection of lymph node metastases (sensitivity/specificity, 0.93/1.00 vs 0.93/0.93; P = 0.157) and distant metastases (sensitivity/specificity, 1.00/0.97 vs 0.82/1.00; P = 0.564). PET/CT tended to misclassify physiologic FDG uptake as malignancy compared with PET/MR (8 patients vs 1 patient). CONCLUSIONS: PET/MR outperforms PET/CT in the workup of suspected occult malignancies. PET/MR may replace PET/CT to improve clinical workflow.
Authors: Benedikt Kranzbühler; Hannes Nagel; Anton S Becker; Julian Müller; Martin Huellner; Paul Stolzmann; Urs Muehlematter; Matthias Guckenberger; Philipp A Kaufmann; Daniel Eberli; Irene A Burger Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2017-10-14 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Dominik Berzaczy; Chiara Giraudo; Alexander R Haug; Markus Raderer; Daniela Senn; Georgios Karanikas; Michael Weber; Marius E Mayerhoefer Journal: Clin Nucl Med Date: 2017-09 Impact factor: 7.794
Authors: Marius E Mayerhoefer; Helmut Prosch; Lucian Beer; Dietmar Tamandl; Thomas Beyer; Christoph Hoeller; Dominik Berzaczy; Markus Raderer; Matthias Preusser; Maximilian Hochmair; Barbara Kiesewetter; Christian Scheuba; Ahmed Ba-Ssalamah; Georgios Karanikas; Julia Kesselbacher; Gerald Prager; Karin Dieckmann; Stephan Polterauer; Michael Weber; Ivo Rausch; Bernhard Brauner; Harald Eidherr; Wolfgang Wadsak; Alexander R Haug Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2019-08-13 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Ken Kudura; Tobias Oblasser; Daniela A Ferraro; Caecilia E Mader; Lars Husmann; Kerstin Friedrich; Edwin E G W Ter Voert; Irene A Burger Journal: Eur J Hybrid Imaging Date: 2020-04-09
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