Julian Kirchner1, Lino M Sawicki2, Felix Nensa3, Benedikt M Schaarschmidt2, Henning Reis4, Marc Ingenwerth4, Simon Bogner5, Clemens Aigner6, Christian Buchbender2, Lale Umutlu3, Gerald Antoch2, Ken Herrmann7, Philipp Heusch2. 1. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Dusseldorf, Medical Faculty, Moorenstrasse 5, D-40225, Dusseldorf, Germany. Julian.Kirchner@med.uni-duesseldorf.de. 2. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Dusseldorf, Medical Faculty, Moorenstrasse 5, D-40225, Dusseldorf, Germany. 3. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology and Neuroradiology, University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, D-45147, Essen, Germany. 4. Institute of Pathology, University Hospital Essen, West German Cancer Center, University Duisburg-Essen and the German Cancer Consortium (DKTK) Essen, D-45147, Essen, Germany. 5. Department of Medical Oncology, University Hospital Essen, West German Cancer Center, University of Duisburg-Essen, D-45122, Essen, Germany. 6. Department of Thoracic Surgery and Surgical Endoscopy, University Hospital Essen, Ruhrlandklinik, University of Duisburg-Essen, D-45147, Essen, Germany. 7. Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, D-45147, Essen, Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare the diagnostic performance of 18F-FDG PET/MRI and 18F-FDG PET/CT for primary and locoregional lymph node staging in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: In this prospective study, a total of 84 patients (51 men, 33 women, mean age 62.5 ± 9.1 years) with histopathologically confirmed NSCLC underwent 18F-FDG PET/CT followed by 18F-FDG PET/MRI in a single injection protocol. Two readers independently assessed T and N staging in separate sessions according to the seventh edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer staging manual for 18F-FDG PET/CT and 18F-FDG PET/MRI, respectively. Histopathology as a reference standard was available for N staging in all 84 patients and for T staging in 39 patients. Differences in staging accuracy were assessed by McNemars chi2 test. The maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) and longitudinal diameters of primary tumors were correlated using Pearson's coefficients. RESULTS: T stage was categorized concordantly in 18F-FDG PET/MRI and 18F-FDG PET/CT in 38 of 39 (97.4%) patients. Herein, 18F-FDG PET/CT and 18F-FDG PET/MRI correctly determined the T stage in 92.3 and 89.7% of patients, respectively. N stage was categorized concordantly in 83 of 84 patients (98.8%). 18F-FDG PET/CT correctly determined the N stage in 78 of 84 patients (92.9%), while 18F-FDG PET/MRI correctly determined the N stage in 77 of 84 patients (91.7%). Differences between 18F-FDG PET/CT and 18F-FDG PET/MRI in T and N staging accuracy were not statistically significant (p > 0.5, each). Tumor size and SUVmax measurements derived from both imaging modalities exhibited excellent correlation (r = 0.963 and r = 0.901, respectively). CONCLUSION: 18F-FDG PET/MRI and 18F-FDG PET/CT show an equivalently high diagnostic performance for T and N staging in patients suffering from NSCLC.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the diagnostic performance of 18F-FDG PET/MRI and 18F-FDG PET/CT for primary and locoregional lymph node staging in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: In this prospective study, a total of 84 patients (51 men, 33 women, mean age 62.5 ± 9.1 years) with histopathologically confirmed NSCLC underwent 18F-FDG PET/CT followed by 18F-FDG PET/MRI in a single injection protocol. Two readers independently assessed T and N staging in separate sessions according to the seventh edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer staging manual for 18F-FDG PET/CT and 18F-FDG PET/MRI, respectively. Histopathology as a reference standard was available for N staging in all 84 patients and for T staging in 39 patients. Differences in staging accuracy were assessed by McNemars chi2 test. The maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) and longitudinal diameters of primary tumors were correlated using Pearson's coefficients. RESULTS: T stage was categorized concordantly in 18F-FDG PET/MRI and 18F-FDG PET/CT in 38 of 39 (97.4%) patients. Herein, 18F-FDG PET/CT and 18F-FDG PET/MRI correctly determined the T stage in 92.3 and 89.7% of patients, respectively. N stage was categorized concordantly in 83 of 84 patients (98.8%). 18F-FDG PET/CT correctly determined the N stage in 78 of 84 patients (92.9%), while 18F-FDG PET/MRI correctly determined the N stage in 77 of 84 patients (91.7%). Differences between 18F-FDG PET/CT and 18F-FDG PET/MRI in T and N staging accuracy were not statistically significant (p > 0.5, each). Tumor size and SUVmax measurements derived from both imaging modalities exhibited excellent correlation (r = 0.963 and r = 0.901, respectively). CONCLUSION:18F-FDG PET/MRI and 18F-FDG PET/CT show an equivalently high diagnostic performance for T and N staging in patients suffering from NSCLC.
Authors: Christian Buchbender; Till A Heusner; Thomas C Lauenstein; Andreas Bockisch; Gerald Antoch Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2012-07-10 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Paul De Leyn; Christophe Dooms; Jaroslaw Kuzdzal; Didier Lardinois; Bernward Passlick; Ramon Rami-Porta; Akif Turna; Paul Van Schil; Frederico Venuta; David Waller; Walter Weder; Marcin Zielinski Journal: Eur J Cardiothorac Surg Date: 2014-02-26 Impact factor: 4.191
Authors: Marius E Mayerhoefer; Helmut Prosch; Lucian Beer; Dietmar Tamandl; Thomas Beyer; Christoph Hoeller; Dominik Berzaczy; Markus Raderer; Matthias Preusser; Maximilian Hochmair; Barbara Kiesewetter; Christian Scheuba; Ahmed Ba-Ssalamah; Georgios Karanikas; Julia Kesselbacher; Gerald Prager; Karin Dieckmann; Stephan Polterauer; Michael Weber; Ivo Rausch; Bernhard Brauner; Harald Eidherr; Wolfgang Wadsak; Alexander R Haug Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2019-08-13 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: M Unterrainer; C Eze; H Ilhan; S Marschner; O Roengvoraphoj; N S Schmidt-Hegemann; F Walter; W G Kunz; P Munck Af Rosenschöld; R Jeraj; N L Albert; A L Grosu; M Niyazi; P Bartenstein; C Belka Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2020-04-21 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: Timothy J Jaykel; Michael S Clark; Daniel A Adamo; Brain T Welch; Scott M Thompson; Jason R Young; Eric C Ehman Journal: J Thorac Dis Date: 2020-11 Impact factor: 2.895
Authors: Joachim P Steinbach; Claus Rödel; Johannes Rieger; Martin Voss; Katharina J Wenger; Nina von Mettenheim; Jörg Bojunga; Manuela Vetter; Bianca Diehl; Kea Franz; Ruediger Gerlach; Michael W Ronellenfitsch; Patrick N Harter; Elke Hattingen Journal: Eur J Nutr Date: 2021-09-06 Impact factor: 5.614
Authors: Florent L Besson; Brice Fernandez; Sylvain Faure; Olaf Mercier; Andrei Seferian; Xavier Mignard; Sacha Mussot; Cecile le Pechoux; Caroline Caramella; Angela Botticella; Antonin Levy; Florence Parent; Sophie Bulifon; David Montani; Delphine Mitilian; Elie Fadel; David Planchard; Benjamin Besse; Maria-Rosa Ghigna-Bellinzoni; Claude Comtat; Vincent Lebon; Emmanuel Durand Journal: EJNMMI Res Date: 2020-07-30 Impact factor: 3.138
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