Ole Martin1, Benedikt M Schaarschmidt2, Julian Kirchner3, Saravanabavaan Suntharalingam2, Johannes Grueneisen2, Aydin Demircioglu2, Philipp Heusch3, Harald H Quick4,5, Michael Forsting2, Gerald Antoch3, Ken Herrmann6, Lale Umutlu2. 1. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Dusseldorf, Medical Faculty, Dusseldorf, Germany ole.martin@med.uni-duesseldorf.de. 2. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology and Neuroradiology, University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany. 3. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Dusseldorf, Medical Faculty, Dusseldorf, Germany. 4. Erwin L. Hahn Institute for Magnetic Resonance Imaging, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany. 5. High-Field and Hybrid MR Imaging, University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany; and. 6. Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany.
Abstract
Our purpose was to investigate differences between PET/MRI and PET/CT in lesion detection and classification in oncologic whole-body examinations and to investigate radiation exposure differences between the 2 modalities. Methods: In this observational single-center study, 1,003 oncologic examinations (918 patients; mean age, 57.8 ± 14.4 y) were included. Patients underwent PET/CT and subsequent PET/MRI (149.8 ± 49.7 min after tracer administration). Examinations were reviewed by radiologists and nuclear medicine physicians in consensus. Additional findings, characterization of indeterminate findings on PET/CT, and missed findings on PET/MRI, including their clinical relevance and effective dose of both modalities, were investigated. The McNemar test was used to compare lesion detection between the 2 hybrid imaging modalities (P < 0.001, indicating statistical significance). Results: Additional information on PET/MRI was reported for 26.3% (264/1,003) of examinations, compared with PET/CT (P < 0.001). Of these, additional malignant findings were detected in 5.3% (53/1,003), leading to a change in TNM staging in 2.9% (29/1,003) due to PET/MRI. Definite lesion classification of indeterminate PET/CT findings was possible in 11.1% (111/1,003) with PET/MRI. In 2.9% (29/1,003), lesions detected on PET/CT were not visible on PET/MRI. Malignant lesions were missed in 1.2% (12/1,003) on PET/MRI, leading to a change in TNM staging in 0.5% (5/1,003). The estimated mean effective dose for whole-body PET/CT amounted to 17.6 ± 8.7 mSv, in comparison to 3.6 ± 1.4 mSv for PET/MRI, resulting in a potential dose reduction of 79.6% (P < 0.001). Conclusion: PET/MRI facilitates staging comparable to that of PET/CT and improves lesion detectability in selected cancers, potentially helping to promote fast, efficient local and whole-body staging in 1 step, when additional MRI is recommended. Furthermore, younger patients may benefit from the reduced radiation exposure of PET/MRI.
Our purpose was to investigate differences between PET/MRI and PET/CT in lesion detection and classification in oncologic whole-body examinations and to investigate radiation exposure differences between the 2 modalities. Methods: In this observational single-center study, 1,003 oncologic examinations (918 patients; mean age, 57.8 ± 14.4 y) were included. Patients underwent PET/CT and subsequent PET/MRI (149.8 ± 49.7 min after tracer administration). Examinations were reviewed by radiologists and nuclear medicine physicians in consensus. Additional findings, characterization of indeterminate findings on PET/CT, and missed findings on PET/MRI, including their clinical relevance and effective dose of both modalities, were investigated. The McNemar test was used to compare lesion detection between the 2 hybrid imaging modalities (P < 0.001, indicating statistical significance). Results: Additional information on PET/MRI was reported for 26.3% (264/1,003) of examinations, compared with PET/CT (P < 0.001). Of these, additional malignant findings were detected in 5.3% (53/1,003), leading to a change in TNM staging in 2.9% (29/1,003) due to PET/MRI. Definite lesion classification of indeterminate PET/CT findings was possible in 11.1% (111/1,003) with PET/MRI. In 2.9% (29/1,003), lesions detected on PET/CT were not visible on PET/MRI. Malignant lesions were missed in 1.2% (12/1,003) on PET/MRI, leading to a change in TNM staging in 0.5% (5/1,003). The estimated mean effective dose for whole-body PET/CT amounted to 17.6 ± 8.7 mSv, in comparison to 3.6 ± 1.4 mSv for PET/MRI, resulting in a potential dose reduction of 79.6% (P < 0.001). Conclusion:PET/MRI facilitates staging comparable to that of PET/CT and improves lesion detectability in selected cancers, potentially helping to promote fast, efficient local and whole-body staging in 1 step, when additional MRI is recommended. Furthermore, younger patients may benefit from the reduced radiation exposure of PET/MRI.
Authors: Luke A Matkovic; Tonghe Wang; Yang Lei; Oladunni O Akin-Akintayo; Olayinka A Abiodun Ojo; Akinyemi A Akintayo; Justin Roper; Jeffery D Bradley; Tian Liu; David M Schuster; Xiaofeng Yang Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2021-12-07 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Dan Pugh; Maira Karabayas; Neil Basu; Maria C Cid; Ruchika Goel; Carl S Goodyear; Peter C Grayson; Stephen P McAdoo; Justin C Mason; Catherine Owen; Cornelia M Weyand; Taryn Youngstein; Neeraj Dhaun Journal: Nat Rev Dis Primers Date: 2022-01-06 Impact factor: 65.038
Authors: Okker D Bijlstra; Maud M E Boreel; Sietse van Mossel; Mark C Burgmans; Ellen H W Kapiteijn; Daniela E Oprea-Lager; Daphne D D Rietbergen; Floris H P van Velden; Alexander L Vahrmeijer; Rutger-Jan Swijnenburg; J Sven D Mieog; Lioe-Fee de Geus-Oei Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2022-03-15