Theresia Sarabhai1, Benedikt M Schaarschmidt2, Axel Wetter3, Julian Kirchner2, Bahriye Aktas4, Michael Forsting3, Verena Ruhlmann5, Ken Herrmann5, Lale Umutlu3, Johannes Grueneisen3. 1. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology and Neuroradiology, University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, Hufelandstrasse 55, D-45147, Essen, Germany. Theresia-catharina.sarabhai@uk-essen.de. 2. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Medical Faculty, University Dusseldorf, D-40225, Dusseldorf, Germany. 3. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology and Neuroradiology, University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, Hufelandstrasse 55, D-45147, Essen, Germany. 4. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, D-45147, Essen, Germany. 5. Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, D-45147, Essen, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of the present study was to assess and compare the diagnostic performance of integrated PET/MRI and MRI alone for local tumor evaluation and whole-body tumor staging of primary cervical cancers. In addition, the corresponding impact on further patient management of the two imaging modalities was assessed. METHODS: A total of 53 consecutive patients with histopathological verification of a primary cervical cancer were prospectively enrolled for a whole-body 18F-FDG PET/MRI examination. Two experienced physicians analyzed the MRI data, in consensus, followed by a second reading session of the PET/MRI datasets. The readers were asked to perform a dedicated TNM staging in accordance with the 7th edition of the AJCC staging manual. Subsequently, the results of MRI and PET/MRI were discussed in a simulated interdisciplinary tumor board and therapeutic decisions based on both imaging modalities were recorded. Results from histopathology and cross-sectional imaging follow-up served as the reference standard. RESULTS: PET/MRI allowed for a correct determination of the T stage in 45/53 (85%) cases, while MRI alone enabled a correct identification of the tumor stage in 46/53 (87%) cases. In 24 of the 53 patients, lymph node metastases were present. For the detection of nodal-positive patients, sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of PET/MRI were 83%, 90% and 87%, respectively. The respective values for MRI alone were 71%, 83% and 77%. In addition, PET/MRI showed higher values for the detection of distant metastases than MRI alone (sensitivity: 87% vs. 67%, specificity: 92% vs. 90%, diagnostic accuracy: 91% vs. 83%). Among the patients with discrepant staging results in the two imaging modalities, PET/MRI enabled correct treatment recommendations for a higher number (n = 9) of patients than MRI alone (n = 3). CONCLUSION: The present results demonstrate the successful application of integrated PET/MRI imaging for whole-body tumor staging of cervical cancer patients, enabling improved treatment planning when compared to MRI alone.
PURPOSE: The aim of the present study was to assess and compare the diagnostic performance of integrated PET/MRI and MRI alone for local tumor evaluation and whole-body tumor staging of primary cervical cancers. In addition, the corresponding impact on further patient management of the two imaging modalities was assessed. METHODS: A total of 53 consecutive patients with histopathological verification of a primary cervical cancer were prospectively enrolled for a whole-body 18F-FDG PET/MRI examination. Two experienced physicians analyzed the MRI data, in consensus, followed by a second reading session of the PET/MRI datasets. The readers were asked to perform a dedicated TNM staging in accordance with the 7th edition of the AJCC staging manual. Subsequently, the results of MRI and PET/MRI were discussed in a simulated interdisciplinary tumor board and therapeutic decisions based on both imaging modalities were recorded. Results from histopathology and cross-sectional imaging follow-up served as the reference standard. RESULTS: PET/MRI allowed for a correct determination of the T stage in 45/53 (85%) cases, while MRI alone enabled a correct identification of the tumor stage in 46/53 (87%) cases. In 24 of the 53 patients, lymph node metastases were present. For the detection of nodal-positive patients, sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of PET/MRI were 83%, 90% and 87%, respectively. The respective values for MRI alone were 71%, 83% and 77%. In addition, PET/MRI showed higher values for the detection of distant metastases than MRI alone (sensitivity: 87% vs. 67%, specificity: 92% vs. 90%, diagnostic accuracy: 91% vs. 83%). Among the patients with discrepant staging results in the two imaging modalities, PET/MRI enabled correct treatment recommendations for a higher number (n = 9) of patients than MRI alone (n = 3). CONCLUSION: The present results demonstrate the successful application of integrated PET/MRI imaging for whole-body tumor staging of cervical cancerpatients, enabling improved treatment planning when compared to MRI alone.
Authors: Ivan Platzek; Bettina Beuthien-Baumann; Georg Schramm; Jens Maus; Michael Laniado; Jörg Kotzerke; Jörg van den Hoff; Markus Schuler Journal: Clin Imaging Date: 2016-11-29 Impact factor: 1.605
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: Matthias Weissinger; Florin-Andrei Taran; Sergios Gatidis; Stefan Kommoss; Konstantin Nikolaou; Samine Sahbai; Christian la Fougère; Sara Yvonne Brucker; Helmut Dittmann Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2021-01-28 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Felipe S Furtado; Cristina R Ferrone; Susanna I Lee; Mark Vangel; David A Rosman; Colin Weekes; Motaz Qadan; Carlos Fernandez-Del Castillo; David P Ryan; Lawrence S Blaszkowsky; Theodore S Hong; Jeffrey W Clark; Robin Striar; David Groshar; Lina G Cañamaque; Lale Umutlu; Onofrio A Catalano Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2021-01-07 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Tyler J Fraum; Kathryn J Fowler; John P Crandall; Richard A Laforest; Amber Salter; Hongyu An; Michael A Jacobs; Perry W Grigsby; Farrokh Dehdashti; Richard L Wahl Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2019-02-07 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Aida Steiner; Sara Narva; Irina Rinta-Kiikka; Sakari Hietanen; Johanna Hynninen; Johanna Virtanen Journal: Cancer Imaging Date: 2021-01-22 Impact factor: 3.909