Lino M Sawicki1,2, Cornelius Deuschl3, Karsten Beiderwellen3, Verena Ruhlmann4, Thorsten D Poeppel4, Philipp Heusch5, Harald Lahner6,7, Dagmar Führer6,7, Andreas Bockisch4, Ken Herrmann4, Michael Forsting3, Gerald Antoch5, Lale Umutlu3. 1. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Medical Faculty, University Dusseldorf, Moorenstrasse 5, 40225, Dusseldorf, Germany. linomorris.sawicki@med.uni-duesseldorf.de. 2. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Medical Faculty, University Duisburg-Essen, 45122, Essen, Germany. linomorris.sawicki@med.uni-duesseldorf.de. 3. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology and Neuroradiology, Medical Faculty, University Duisburg-Essen, 45122, Essen, Germany. 4. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Medical Faculty, University Duisburg-Essen, 45122, Essen, Germany. 5. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Medical Faculty, University Dusseldorf, Moorenstrasse 5, 40225, Dusseldorf, Germany. 6. Department of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Endocrine Tumour Center at WTZ and ENETS Center of Excellence, Medical Faculty, University Duisburg-Essen, D-45122, Essen, Germany. 7. Endocrine Tumour Center at WTZ and ENETS Center of Excellence, 45122, Essen, Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare the diagnostic performance of 68Ga-DOTATOC PET/MRI and 68Ga-DOTATOC PET/CT in the whole-body staging of patients with neuroendocrine tumours (NET). METHODS: Thirty patients with histopathologically confirmed NET underwent PET/CT and PET/MRI in a single-injection protocol. PET/CT and PET/MRI scans were prospectively evaluated with regard to lesion count, localization, nature (NET/non-NET), and conspicuity (four-point scale). Histopathology and follow-up imaging served as the reference standards. The proportions of NET and non-NET lesions rated correctly were compared using McNemar's chi-squared test. The Wilcoxon test was used to assess differences in SUVmax and lesion conspicuity. The correlation between the SUVmax for the same lesions from each modality was analysed using Pearson's correlation coefficient (r). RESULTS: According to the reference standard, there were 197 lesions (142 NET, 55 non-NET). Lesion-based analysis showed a higher proportion of correctly rated NET lesions on PET/MRI than on PET/CT (90.8% vs. 86.7%, p = 0.031), whereas on PET/CT there was a higher proportion of correctly rated non-NET lesions (94.5% vs. 83.6%, p = 0.031). SUVmax was strongly correlated (r = 0.86; p < 0.001) and did not differ significantly (p = 0.35) between the modalities. Overall conspicuity and NET lesion conspicuity were higher on PET/MRI (both p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Ga-DOTATOC PET/MRI yielded a higher proportion of correctly rated NET lesions and should be regarded as a valuable alternative to 68Ga-DOTATOC PET/CT in whole-body staging of NET patients. KEY POINTS: • 68 Ga-DOTATOC PET/MRI correctly identified more NET lesions than 68 Ga-DOTATOC PET/CT. • 68 Ga-DOTATOC PET/MRI provides better NET lesion conspicuity than 68 Ga-DOTATOC PET/CT. • SUVmax values from the two modalities are strongly correlated and do not differ significantly.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the diagnostic performance of 68Ga-DOTATOC PET/MRI and 68Ga-DOTATOC PET/CT in the whole-body staging of patients with neuroendocrine tumours (NET). METHODS: Thirty patients with histopathologically confirmed NET underwent PET/CT and PET/MRI in a single-injection protocol. PET/CT and PET/MRI scans were prospectively evaluated with regard to lesion count, localization, nature (NET/non-NET), and conspicuity (four-point scale). Histopathology and follow-up imaging served as the reference standards. The proportions of NET and non-NET lesions rated correctly were compared using McNemar's chi-squared test. The Wilcoxon test was used to assess differences in SUVmax and lesion conspicuity. The correlation between the SUVmax for the same lesions from each modality was analysed using Pearson's correlation coefficient (r). RESULTS: According to the reference standard, there were 197 lesions (142 NET, 55 non-NET). Lesion-based analysis showed a higher proportion of correctly rated NET lesions on PET/MRI than on PET/CT (90.8% vs. 86.7%, p = 0.031), whereas on PET/CT there was a higher proportion of correctly rated non-NET lesions (94.5% vs. 83.6%, p = 0.031). SUVmax was strongly correlated (r = 0.86; p < 0.001) and did not differ significantly (p = 0.35) between the modalities. Overall conspicuity and NET lesion conspicuity were higher on PET/MRI (both p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Ga-DOTATOC PET/MRI yielded a higher proportion of correctly rated NET lesions and should be regarded as a valuable alternative to 68Ga-DOTATOC PET/CT in whole-body staging of NET patients. KEY POINTS: • 68 Ga-DOTATOC PET/MRI correctly identified more NET lesions than 68 Ga-DOTATOC PET/CT. • 68 Ga-DOTATOC PET/MRI provides better NET lesion conspicuity than 68 Ga-DOTATOC PET/CT. • SUVmax values from the two modalities are strongly correlated and do not differ significantly.
Authors: Thomas A Hope; Miguel Hernandez Pampaloni; Eric Nakakura; Henry VanBrocklin; James Slater; Salma Jivan; Carina Mari Aparici; Judy Yee; Emily Bergsland Journal: Abdom Imaging Date: 2015-08
Authors: James C Yao; Manal Hassan; Alexandria Phan; Cecile Dagohoy; Colleen Leary; Jeannette E Mares; Eddie K Abdalla; Jason B Fleming; Jean-Nicolas Vauthey; Asif Rashid; Douglas B Evans Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-06-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Lino M Sawicki; Johannes Grueneisen; Christian Buchbender; Benedikt M Schaarschmidt; Benedikt Gomez; Verena Ruhlmann; Axel Wetter; Lale Umutlu; Gerald Antoch; Philipp Heusch Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2016-01-07 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: C Lombard-Bohas; E Mitry; D O'Toole; C Louvet; D Pillon; G Cadiot; F Borson-Chazot; T Aparicio; M Ducreux; T Lecomte; P L Etienne; W Cacheux; J L Legoux; J F Seitz; P Ruszniewski; J A Chayvialle; P Rougier Journal: Neuroendocrinology Date: 2008-08-22 Impact factor: 4.914
Authors: Cosimo Durante; Houda Boukheris; Clarisse Dromain; Pierre Duvillard; Sophie Leboulleux; Dominique Elias; Thierry de Baere; David Malka; Jean Lumbroso; Joël Guigay; Martin Schlumberger; Michel Ducreux; Eric Baudin Journal: Endocr Relat Cancer Date: 2009-02-24 Impact factor: 5.678
Authors: Nina F Schwenzer; Ferdinand Seith; Sergios Gatidis; Cornelia Brendle; Holger Schmidt; Christina A Pfannenberg; Christian laFougère; Konstantin Nikolaou; Christina Schraml Journal: Korean J Radiol Date: 2016-08-23 Impact factor: 3.500
Authors: Thomas A Hope; Emily K Bergsland; Murat Fani Bozkurt; Michael Graham; Anthony P Heaney; Ken Herrmann; James R Howe; Matthew H Kulke; Pamela L Kunz; Josh Mailman; Lawrence May; David C Metz; Corina Millo; Sue O'Dorisio; Diane L Reidy-Lagunes; Michael C Soulen; Jonathan R Strosberg Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2017-10-12 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Manuel Weber; Lukas Kessler; Benedikt Schaarschmidt; Wolfgang Peter Fendler; Harald Lahner; Gerald Antoch; Lale Umutlu; Ken Herrmann; Christoph Rischpler Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2020-04-16 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Ali Pirasteh; Christopher Riedl; Marius Erik Mayerhoefer; Romina Grazia Giancipoli; Steven Mark Larson; Lisa Bodei Journal: Clin Transl Imaging Date: 2019-09-20