Julian Kirchner1, Cornelius Deuschl2, Bernd Schweiger2, Ken Herrmann3, Michael Forsting2, Christian Buchbender4, Gerald Antoch4, Lale Umutlu2. 1. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Medical Faculty, University Dusseldorf, Moorenstrasse 5, D-40225, Dusseldorf, Germany. Julian.Kirchner@med.uni-duesseldorf.de. 2. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology and Neuroradiology, University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, D-45147, Essen, Germany. 3. Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, D-45147, Essen, Germany. 4. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Medical Faculty, University Dusseldorf, Moorenstrasse 5, D-40225, Dusseldorf, Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to evaluate and compare the diagnostic potential of different PET/MRI reading protocols, entailing non-enhanced / contrast-enhanced and diffusion-weighted 18F-FDG PET/MR imaging and whole-body diffusion-weighted MRI for lesion detection and determination of the tumor stage in pediatric lymphoma patients. METHODS: A total of 28 18F-FDG PET/MRI datasets were included for analysis of four different reading protocols: (1) PET/MRI utilizing sole unenhanced T2w and T1w imaging, (2) PET/MRI utilizing additional contrast enhanced sequences, (3) PET/MR imaging utilizing unenhanced, contrast enhanced and DW imaging or (4) WB-DW-MRI. Statistical analyses were performed on a per-patient and a per-lesion basis. Follow-up and prior examinations as well as histopathology served as reference standards. RESULTS: PET/MRI correctly identified all 17 examinations with active lymphoma disease, while WB-DW-MRI correctly identified 15/17 examinations. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and diagnostic accuracy were 96%, 96.5%, 97%, 95%, and 96% for PET/MRI1; 97%, 96.5%, 97%, 96.5%, and 97% for PET/MRI2; 97%, 96.5%, 97%, 96.5%, and 97% for PET/MRI3 and 77%, 96%, 96%, 78.5% and 86% for MRI-DWI. CONCLUSION: 18F-FDG PET/MRI is superior to WB-DW-MRI in staging pediatric lymphoma patients. Neither application of contrast media nor DWI leads to a noticeable improvement of the diagnostic accuracy of PET/MRI. Thus, unenhanced PET/MRI may play a crucial role for the diagnostic work-up of pediatric lymphoma patients in the future.
OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to evaluate and compare the diagnostic potential of different PET/MRI reading protocols, entailing non-enhanced / contrast-enhanced and diffusion-weighted 18F-FDG PET/MR imaging and whole-body diffusion-weighted MRI for lesion detection and determination of the tumor stage in pediatric lymphomapatients. METHODS: A total of 28 18F-FDG PET/MRI datasets were included for analysis of four different reading protocols: (1) PET/MRI utilizing sole unenhanced T2w and T1w imaging, (2) PET/MRI utilizing additional contrast enhanced sequences, (3) PET/MR imaging utilizing unenhanced, contrast enhanced and DW imaging or (4) WB-DW-MRI. Statistical analyses were performed on a per-patient and a per-lesion basis. Follow-up and prior examinations as well as histopathology served as reference standards. RESULTS: PET/MRI correctly identified all 17 examinations with active lymphoma disease, while WB-DW-MRI correctly identified 15/17 examinations. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and diagnostic accuracy were 96%, 96.5%, 97%, 95%, and 96% for PET/MRI1; 97%, 96.5%, 97%, 96.5%, and 97% for PET/MRI2; 97%, 96.5%, 97%, 96.5%, and 97% for PET/MRI3 and 77%, 96%, 96%, 78.5% and 86% for MRI-DWI. CONCLUSION:18F-FDG PET/MRI is superior to WB-DW-MRI in staging pediatric lymphomapatients. Neither application of contrast media nor DWI leads to a noticeable improvement of the diagnostic accuracy of PET/MRI. Thus, unenhanced PET/MRI may play a crucial role for the diagnostic work-up of pediatric lymphomapatients in the future.
Authors: Andrew C Sher; Victor Seghers; Michael J Paldino; Cristina Dodge; Ramkumar Krishnamurthy; Rajesh Krishnamurthy; Eric M Rohren Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2016-03 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Alexander Radbruch; Lukas D Weberling; Pascal J Kieslich; Oliver Eidel; Sina Burth; Philipp Kickingereder; Sabine Heiland; Wolfgang Wick; Heinz-Peter Schlemmer; Martin Bendszus Journal: Radiology Date: 2015-04-06 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Bruce D Cheson; Richard I Fisher; Sally F Barrington; Franco Cavalli; Lawrence H Schwartz; Emanuele Zucca; T Andrew Lister Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-09-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Sergios Gatidis; Holger Schmidt; Brigitte Gücke; Ilja Bezrukov; Guido Seitz; Martin Ebinger; Matthias Reimold; Christina A Pfannenberg; Konstantin Nikolaou; Nina F Schwenzer; Jürgen F Schäfer Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2016-01 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: John D Mathews; Anna V Forsythe; Zoe Brady; Martin W Butler; Stacy K Goergen; Graham B Byrnes; Graham G Giles; Anthony B Wallace; Philip R Anderson; Tenniel A Guiver; Paul McGale; Timothy M Cain; James G Dowty; Adrian C Bickerstaffe; Sarah C Darby Journal: BMJ Date: 2013-05-21
Authors: Thomas A Hope; Zahi A Fayad; Kathryn J Fowler; Dawn Holley; Andrei Iagaru; Alan B McMillan; Patrick Veit-Haiback; Robert J Witte; Greg Zaharchuk; Ciprian Catana Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2019-05-23 Impact factor: 10.057
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