Ferdinand Seith1, Christina Schraml2, Gerald Reischl3, Konstantin Nikolaou2, Christina Pfannenberg2, Christian la Fougère4, Nina Schwenzer2. 1. Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Department of Radiology, Eberhard Karls University, Hoppe-Seyler-Strasse 3, 72076, Tuebingen, Germany. ferdinand.seith@med.uni-tuebingen.de. 2. Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Department of Radiology, Eberhard Karls University, Hoppe-Seyler-Strasse 3, 72076, Tuebingen, Germany. 3. Preclinical Imaging and Radiopharmacy, University Department of Radiology, Eberhard Karls University, Roentgenweg 15, 72076, Tuebingen, Germany. 4. Nuclear Medicine and Clinical Molecular Imaging, University Department of Radiology, Eberhard Karls University, Otfried-Mueller-Strasse 14, 72076, Tuebingen, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate fast non-enhanced protocols for abdominal PET/MRI in comparison to contrast-enhanced PET/CT with somatostatin receptor (SSR)-specific radiotracers regarding effectiveness of lesion detection in NET patients. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of 29 patients (12 male, 57 ± 13 years) who underwent PET/CT and subsequently PET/MRI at the same day. Two readers evaluated independently four PET/MRI setups: (I) PET + T2 Half Fourier Acquisition Single Shot Turbo Spin Echo (T2 HASTE), (II) PET + T2 HASTE + T2-weighted spin-echo sequence (T2 TSE), III) PET + T2 HASTE + Diffusion Weighted Imaging (DWI) and (IV) PET + T2 HASTE + T2 TSE + DWI. A consensus reading of PET/MRI and PET/CT including follow-up examinations served as the reference standard for lesion-based analysis. Lesion sizes were assessed. RESULTS: Setup IV provided comparable overall detection rates as PET/CT in both readers: PET/MRI 91.5%/92.9% versus 89.7% in PET/CT. In liver and bone lesions (mean diameter: 1.9 and 1.5 cm), PET/MRI was equal or superior to PET/CT: 98%/98% versus 85% in PET/CT; 100%/95% versus 100% in PET/CT, but inferior in pancreatic lesions, small bowel lesions and lymph node metastases (mean diameter: 1.3, 0.5 and 1.8 cm). CONCLUSION: A non-enhanced MR protocol comprising T2 HASTE, T2 TSE and DWI for SSR-PET/MRI seems to provide comparable effectiveness in lesions detection as multiphase contrast-enhanced PET/CT. It might, therefore, serve as valid alternative, e.g., for follow-up examinations in patients with unresectable NET and kidney failure.
PURPOSE: To evaluate fast non-enhanced protocols for abdominal PET/MRI in comparison to contrast-enhanced PET/CT with somatostatin receptor (SSR)-specific radiotracers regarding effectiveness of lesion detection in NET patients. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of 29 patients (12 male, 57 ± 13 years) who underwent PET/CT and subsequently PET/MRI at the same day. Two readers evaluated independently four PET/MRI setups: (I) PET + T2 Half Fourier Acquisition Single Shot Turbo Spin Echo (T2 HASTE), (II) PET + T2 HASTE + T2-weighted spin-echo sequence (T2 TSE), III) PET + T2 HASTE + Diffusion Weighted Imaging (DWI) and (IV) PET + T2 HASTE + T2 TSE + DWI. A consensus reading of PET/MRI and PET/CT including follow-up examinations served as the reference standard for lesion-based analysis. Lesion sizes were assessed. RESULTS: Setup IV provided comparable overall detection rates as PET/CT in both readers: PET/MRI 91.5%/92.9% versus 89.7% in PET/CT. In liver and bone lesions (mean diameter: 1.9 and 1.5 cm), PET/MRI was equal or superior to PET/CT: 98%/98% versus 85% in PET/CT; 100%/95% versus 100% in PET/CT, but inferior in pancreatic lesions, small bowel lesions and lymph node metastases (mean diameter: 1.3, 0.5 and 1.8 cm). CONCLUSION: A non-enhanced MR protocol comprising T2 HASTE, T2 TSE and DWI for SSR-PET/MRI seems to provide comparable effectiveness in lesions detection as multiphase contrast-enhanced PET/CT. It might, therefore, serve as valid alternative, e.g., for follow-up examinations in patients with unresectable NET and kidney failure.
Authors: Mark Oehmigen; Susanne Ziegler; Bjoern W Jakoby; Jens-Christoph Georgi; Daniel H Paulus; Harald H Quick Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2014-07-08 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: E Belousova; G Karmazanovsky; A Kriger; D Kalinin; L Mannelli; A Glotov; N Karelskaya; O Paklina; A Kaldarov Journal: Clin Radiol Date: 2016-11-24 Impact factor: 2.350
Authors: Daniel H Paulus; Harald H Quick; Christian Geppert; Matthias Fenchel; Yiqiang Zhan; Gerardo Hermosillo; David Faul; Fernando Boada; Kent P Friedman; Thomas Koesters Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2015-05-29 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Clarisse Dromain; Thierry de Baere; Jean Lumbroso; Hubert Caillet; Agnès Laplanche; Valerie Boige; Michel Ducreux; Pierre Duvillard; Dominique Elias; Martin Schlumberger; Robert Sigal; Eric Baudin Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-01-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Dominik Berzaczy; Chiara Giraudo; Alexander R Haug; Markus Raderer; Daniela Senn; Georgios Karanikas; Michael Weber; Marius E Mayerhoefer Journal: Clin Nucl Med Date: 2017-09 Impact factor: 7.794
Authors: C Schraml; N F Schwenzer; O Sperling; P Aschoff; M P Lichy; M Müller; C Brendle; M K Werner; C D Claussen; C Pfannenberg Journal: Cancer Imaging Date: 2013-03-05 Impact factor: 3.909
Authors: Ali Pirasteh; Christopher Riedl; Marius Erik Mayerhoefer; Romina Grazia Giancipoli; Steven Mark Larson; Lisa Bodei Journal: Clin Transl Imaging Date: 2019-09-20