Amit Singnurkar1, Raymond Poon2, Ur Metser3. 1. Department of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Hamilton Health Sciences and St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton, 711 Concession Street, Hamilton, ON, L8V 1C3, Canada. 2. Program in Evidence-Based Care, Cancer Care Ontario, Juravinski Hospital and Cancer Centre, G Wing, 2nd Floor, 711 Concession Street, Hamilton, ON, L8V 1C3, Canada. poonra@mcmaster.ca. 3. Joint Department of Medical Imaging, University Health Network, Mount Sinai Hospital and Women's College Hospital, University of Toronto, 610 University Ave., Suite 3-960, Toronto, ON, M5G 2M9, Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to systematically review the literature to evaluate the clinical performance of integrated 18F-FDG PET/MR as compared with 18F-FDG PET/CT in oncologic imaging. METHODS: The literature was searched using MEDLINE and EMBASE via OVID. Studies comparing the diagnostic accuracy of integrated 18F-FDG PET/MR and 18F-FDG PET/CT in the diagnosis, staging/restaging, assessment of treatment response, or evaluation of metastasis in patients with suspected or diagnosed cancers were deemed eligible for inclusion. Risk of bias and applicability concerns were assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool. RESULTS: Twenty studies met the inclusion criteria. The overall quality of the studies was rated favorably with bias or applicability concerns in a few studies. Our review suggests that 18F-FDG PET/MR performs comparably to 18F-FDG PET/CT in the detection of local lymph node and distant metastases and superiorly in determining the local extent of tumor. SUV obtained from 18F-FDG PET/MR correlated highly with those obtained from 18F-FDG PET/CT. CONCLUSIONS: Based on early evidence, 18F-FDG PET/MR is comparable to 18F-FDG PET/CT in the clinical scenarios examined in this review. The potential for interchangeability of 18F-FDG PET/MR with 18F-FDG PET/CT will vary by indication and the body site that is being imaged, with PET scanners integrated with MRI predicted to provide greater detail in the evaluation of local tumor extent, where 18F-FDG PET/CT can be limited.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to systematically review the literature to evaluate the clinical performance of integrated 18F-FDG PET/MR as compared with 18F-FDG PET/CT in oncologic imaging. METHODS: The literature was searched using MEDLINE and EMBASE via OVID. Studies comparing the diagnostic accuracy of integrated 18F-FDG PET/MR and 18F-FDG PET/CT in the diagnosis, staging/restaging, assessment of treatment response, or evaluation of metastasis in patients with suspected or diagnosed cancers were deemed eligible for inclusion. Risk of bias and applicability concerns were assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool. RESULTS: Twenty studies met the inclusion criteria. The overall quality of the studies was rated favorably with bias or applicability concerns in a few studies. Our review suggests that 18F-FDG PET/MR performs comparably to 18F-FDG PET/CT in the detection of local lymph node and distant metastases and superiorly in determining the local extent of tumor. SUV obtained from 18F-FDG PET/MR correlated highly with those obtained from 18F-FDG PET/CT. CONCLUSIONS: Based on early evidence, 18F-FDG PET/MR is comparable to 18F-FDG PET/CT in the clinical scenarios examined in this review. The potential for interchangeability of 18F-FDG PET/MR with 18F-FDG PET/CT will vary by indication and the body site that is being imaged, with PET scanners integrated with MRI predicted to provide greater detail in the evaluation of local tumor extent, where 18F-FDG PET/CT can be limited.
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: Alexander Herold; Christian Wassipaul; Michael Weber; Florian Lindenlaub; Sazan Rasul; Anton Stift; Judith Stift; Marius E Mayerhoefer; Marcus Hacker; Ahmed Ba-Ssalamah; Alexander R Haug; Dietmar Tamandl Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2022-09-05 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Sui Wai Ling; Anouk C de Jong; Ivo G Schoots; Kazem Nasserinejad; Martijn B Busstra; Astrid A M van der Veldt; Tessa Brabander Journal: Eur Urol Open Sci Date: 2021-09-28