Lino M Sawicki1, Julian Kirchner2, Johannes Grueneisen3, Verena Ruhlmann4, Bahriye Aktas5, Benedikt M Schaarschmidt2, Michael Forsting3, Ken Herrmann4, Gerald Antoch2, Lale Umutlu3. 1. Medical Faculty, Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Dusseldorf, Moorenstrasse 5, D-40225, Dusseldorf, Germany. linomorris.sawicki@med.uni-duesseldorf.de. 2. Medical Faculty, Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Dusseldorf, Moorenstrasse 5, D-40225, Dusseldorf, Germany. 3. Medical Faculty, Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology and Neuroradiology, University Duisburg-Essen, D-45147, Essen, Germany. 4. Medical Faculty, Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Duisburg-Essen, D-45147, Essen, Germany. 5. Medical Faculty, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Duisburg-Essen, D-45147, Essen, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of 18F-FDG PET/MRI for whole-body staging and potential changes in therapeutic management of women with suspected recurrent pelvic cancer in comparison with MRI alone. METHODS: Seventy-one consecutive women (54 ± 13 years, range: 25-80 years) with suspected recurrence of cervical (32), ovarian (26), endometrial (7), vulvar (4), and vaginal (2) cancer underwent PET/MRI including a diagnostic contrast-enhanced MRI protocol. PET/MRI and MRI datasets were separately evaluated regarding lesion count, localization, categorization (benign/malignant), and diagnostic confidence (3-point scale; 1-3) by two physicians. The reference standard was based on histopathology results and follow-up imaging. Diagnostic accuracy and proportions of malignant and benign lesions rated correctly were retrospectively compared using McNemar's chi2 test. Differences in diagnostic confidence were assessed by Wilcoxon test. RESULTS: Fifty-five patients showed cancer recurrence. PET/MRI correctly identified more patients with cancer recurrence than MRI alone (100% vs. 83.6%, p < 0.01). In contrast to PET/MRI, MRI alone missed 4/15 patients with pelvic recurrence and miscategorized 8/40 patients with distant metastases as having local recurrence only. Based on the reference standard, 241 lesions were detected in the study cohort (181 malignant, 60 benign). While PET/MRI provided correct identification of 181/181 (100%) malignant lesions, MRI alone correctly identified 135/181 (74.6%) malignant lesions, which was significantly less compared to PET/MRI (p < 0.001). PET/MRI offered superior diagnostic accuracy (99.2% vs. 79.3%, p < 0.001) and diagnostic confidence in the categorization of malignant lesions compared with MRI alone (2.7 ± 0.5 vs. 2.4 ± 0.7, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: PET/MRI demonstrates excellent diagnostic performance and outperforms MRI alone for whole-body staging of women with suspected recurrent pelvic cancer, indicating potential changes in therapy management based on evaluation of local recurrence and distant metastatic spread.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of 18F-FDG PET/MRI for whole-body staging and potential changes in therapeutic management of women with suspected recurrent pelvic cancer in comparison with MRI alone. METHODS: Seventy-one consecutive women (54 ± 13 years, range: 25-80 years) with suspected recurrence of cervical (32), ovarian (26), endometrial (7), vulvar (4), and vaginal (2) cancer underwent PET/MRI including a diagnostic contrast-enhanced MRI protocol. PET/MRI and MRI datasets were separately evaluated regarding lesion count, localization, categorization (benign/malignant), and diagnostic confidence (3-point scale; 1-3) by two physicians. The reference standard was based on histopathology results and follow-up imaging. Diagnostic accuracy and proportions of malignant and benign lesions rated correctly were retrospectively compared using McNemar's chi2 test. Differences in diagnostic confidence were assessed by Wilcoxon test. RESULTS: Fifty-five patients showed cancer recurrence. PET/MRI correctly identified more patients with cancer recurrence than MRI alone (100% vs. 83.6%, p < 0.01). In contrast to PET/MRI, MRI alone missed 4/15 patients with pelvic recurrence and miscategorized 8/40 patients with distant metastases as having local recurrence only. Based on the reference standard, 241 lesions were detected in the study cohort (181 malignant, 60 benign). While PET/MRI provided correct identification of 181/181 (100%) malignant lesions, MRI alone correctly identified 135/181 (74.6%) malignant lesions, which was significantly less compared to PET/MRI (p < 0.001). PET/MRI offered superior diagnostic accuracy (99.2% vs. 79.3%, p < 0.001) and diagnostic confidence in the categorization of malignant lesions compared with MRI alone (2.7 ± 0.5 vs. 2.4 ± 0.7, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: PET/MRI demonstrates excellent diagnostic performance and outperforms MRI alone for whole-body staging of women with suspected recurrent pelvic cancer, indicating potential changes in therapy management based on evaluation of local recurrence and distant metastatic spread.
Authors: Katrijn L M Michielsen; Ignace Vergote; Raphaëla Dresen; Katya Op de Beeck; Ragna Vanslembrouck; Frédéric Amant; Karin Leunen; Philippe Moerman; Steffen Fieuws; Frederik De Keyzer; Vincent Vandecaveye Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2016-09-21 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Sunit Sebastian; Susanna I Lee; Neil S Horowitz; James A Scott; Alan J Fischman; Joseph F Simeone; Arlan F Fuller; Peter F Hahn Journal: Abdom Imaging Date: 2008 Jan-Feb
Authors: M Murakami; T Miyamoto; T Iida; H Tsukada; M Watanabe; M Shida; H Maeda; S Nasu; S Yasuda; M Yasuda; M Ide Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Date: 2006 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 3.437
Authors: Donald G Mitchell; Marcia C Javitt; Phyllis Glanc; Genevieve L Bennett; Douglas L Brown; Theodore Dubinsky; Mukesh G Harisinghani; Robert D Harris; Neil S Horowitz; Pari V Pandharipande; Harpreet K Pannu; Ann E Podrasky; Henry D Royal; Thomas D Shipp; Cary Lynn Siegel; Lynn Simpson; Jade J Wong-You-Cheong; Carolyn M Zelop Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2013-11 Impact factor: 5.532
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: 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
Authors: Nils Martin Bruckmann; Julian Kirchner; Janna Morawitz; Lale Umutlu; Ken Herrmann; Ann-Kathrin Bittner; Oliver Hoffmann; Svjetlana Mohrmann; Marc Ingenwerth; Benedikt M Schaarschmidt; Yan Li; Andreas Stang; Gerald Antoch; Lino M Sawicki; Christian Buchbender Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-12-02 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Nils Martin Bruckmann; Lino M Sawicki; Julian Kirchner; Ole Martin; Lale Umutlu; Ken Herrmann; Wolfgang Fendler; Ann-Kathrin Bittner; Oliver Hoffmann; Svjetlana Mohrmann; Frederic Dietzel; Marc Ingenwerth; Benedikt M Schaarschmidt; Yan Li; Bernd Kowall; Andreas Stang; Gerald Antoch; Christian Buchbender Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2020-04-24 Impact factor: 9.236