Anni Morsing1,2, Malene Grubbe Hildebrandt3,4,5, Mie Holm Vilstrup3, Sara Elisabeth Wallenius3, Oke Gerke3, Henrik Petersen3, Allan Johansen3, Thomas Lund Andersen3,6, Poul Flemming Høilund-Carlsen3,4. 1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark. Anni.morsing@dadlnet.dk. 2. MAgNetic Resonance Technology for Response Adapted Radiotherapy (MANTRA), Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark. Anni.morsing@dadlnet.dk. 3. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark. 4. Research Unit of Clinical Physiology and Nuclear Medicine, Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark. 5. Centre for Innovative Medical Technology (CIMT), Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark. 6. MAgNetic Resonance Technology for Response Adapted Radiotherapy (MANTRA), Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark.
Abstract
PURPOSE: PET/MRI was introduced for clinical use in 2011 and is now an established modality for the imaging of brain and certain pelvic cancers, whereas clinical use for the imaging of other forms of cancer is not yet widespread. We therefore systematically investigated what has been published on the use of PET/MRI compared to PET/CT in the imaging of cancers outside the brain, focusing on clinical areas of application related to diagnosis, staging and restaging. METHODS: A systematic search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library was performed. Studies evaluating the diagnostic performance of simultaneous PET/MRI in cancer patients were chosen. RESULTS: A total of 3,138 publications were identified and 116 published during the period 2012-2018 were included and were grouped according to the major cancer forms: 13 head and neck (HNC), 9 breast (BC), 21 prostate (PC), 14 gynaecological, 13 gastrointestinal (GIC), and 46 various cancers. Data from studies comparing PET/MRI and PET/CT for staging/restaging suggested the superiority of 18F-FDG PET/MRI for the detection of tumour extension and retropharyngeal lymph node metastases in nasopharyngeal cancer, and for the detection of liver metastases and possibly bone marrow metastases in high-risk BC. FDG PET/MRI tended to be inferior for the detection of lung metastases in HNC and BC. 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/MRI was superior to PET/CT for the detection of local PC recurrence. FDG PET/MRI was superior to FDG PET/CT for the detection of local tumour invasion in cervical cancer and had higher accuracy for the detection of liver metastases in colorectal cancer. CONCLUSION: The scoping review methodology resulted in the identification of a huge number of records, of which less than 5% were suitable for inclusion and only a limited number allowed conclusions on the advantages/disadvantages of PET/MRI compared to PET/CT in the oncological setting. There was evidence to support the use of FDG PET/MRI in staging of nasopharyngeal cancer and high-risk BC. Preliminary data indicate the superiority of PET/MRI for the detection of local recurrence in PC, local tumour invasion in cervical cancer, and liver metastases in colorectal cancer. These conclusions are based on small datasets and need to be further explored.
PURPOSE: PET/MRI was introduced for clinical use in 2011 and is now an established modality for the imaging of brain and certain pelvic cancers, whereas clinical use for the imaging of other forms of cancer is not yet widespread. We therefore systematically investigated what has been published on the use of PET/MRI compared to PET/CT in the imaging of cancers outside the brain, focusing on clinical areas of application related to diagnosis, staging and restaging. METHODS: A systematic search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library was performed. Studies evaluating the diagnostic performance of simultaneous PET/MRI in cancerpatients were chosen. RESULTS: A total of 3,138 publications were identified and 116 published during the period 2012-2018 were included and were grouped according to the major cancer forms: 13 head and neck (HNC), 9 breast (BC), 21 prostate (PC), 14 gynaecological, 13 gastrointestinal (GIC), and 46 various cancers. Data from studies comparing PET/MRI and PET/CT for staging/restaging suggested the superiority of 18F-FDG PET/MRI for the detection of tumour extension and retropharyngeal lymph node metastases in nasopharyngeal cancer, and for the detection of liver metastases and possibly bone marrow metastases in high-risk BC. FDG PET/MRI tended to be inferior for the detection of lung metastases in HNC and BC. 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/MRI was superior to PET/CT for the detection of local PC recurrence. FDG PET/MRI was superior to FDG PET/CT for the detection of local tumour invasion in cervical cancer and had higher accuracy for the detection of liver metastases in colorectal cancer. CONCLUSION: The scoping review methodology resulted in the identification of a huge number of records, of which less than 5% were suitable for inclusion and only a limited number allowed conclusions on the advantages/disadvantages of PET/MRI compared to PET/CT in the oncological setting. There was evidence to support the use of FDG PET/MRI in staging of nasopharyngeal cancer and high-risk BC. Preliminary data indicate the superiority of PET/MRI for the detection of local recurrence in PC, local tumour invasion in cervical cancer, and liver metastases in colorectal cancer. These conclusions are based on small datasets and need to be further explored.
Authors: Michael Souvatzoglou; Matthias Eiber; Toshiki Takei; Sebastian Fürst; Tobias Maurer; Florian Gaertner; Hans Geinitz; Alexander Drzezga; Sibylle Ziegler; Stephan G Nekolla; Ernst J Rummeny; Markus Schwaiger; Ambros J Beer Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2013-07-02 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: K Kubiessa; S Purz; M Gawlitza; A Kühn; J Fuchs; K G Steinhoff; A Boehm; O Sabri; R Kluge; T Kahn; P Stumpp Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2013-11-29 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Isabel Rauscher; Matthias Eiber; Sebastian Fürst; Michael Souvatzoglou; Stephan G Nekolla; Sibylle I Ziegler; Ernst J Rummeny; Markus Schwaiger; Ambros J Beer Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2014-03-20 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Christopher C Riedl; Elina Slobod; Maxine Jochelson; Monica Morrow; Debra A Goldman; Mithat Gonen; Wolfgang A Weber; Gary A Ulaner Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2014-09-11 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Hersh Chandarana; Laura Heacock; Rajan Rakheja; Linda R DeMello; John Bonavita; Tobias K Block; Christian Geppert; James S Babb; Kent P Friedman Journal: Radiology Date: 2013-06-04 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Karsten Beiderwellen; Johannes Grueneisen; Verena Ruhlmann; Paul Buderath; Bahriye Aktas; Philipp Heusch; Oliver Kraff; Michael Forsting; Thomas C Lauenstein; Lale Umutlu Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2014-09-16 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: O A Catalano; E Nicolai; B R Rosen; A Luongo; M Catalano; C Iannace; A Guimaraes; M G Vangel; U Mahmood; A Soricelli; M Salvatore Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2015-04-14 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Mai T Pham; Andrijana Rajić; Judy D Greig; Jan M Sargeant; Andrew Papadopoulos; Scott A McEwen Journal: Res Synth Methods Date: 2014-07-24 Impact factor: 5.273
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