Francesco Paparo1, Alice Peirano2, João Matos3, Lorenzo Bacigalupo1, Umberto Rossi4, Ilaria Mussetto1, Gianluca Bottoni5, Martina Ugolini6, Carlo Introini7, Filippo Grillo Ruggieri8, Gian Andrea Rollandi1, Arnoldo Piccardo5. 1. Unit of Radiology, Department of Diagnostic Imaging, E.O. Galliera Hospital, Genoa, Italy. 2. DISSAL - Department of Health Sciences, University of Genoa, Via Antonio Pastore, 1, 16132, Genoa, GE, Italy. 3. DISSAL - Department of Health Sciences, University of Genoa, Via Antonio Pastore, 1, 16132, Genoa, GE, Italy. jfgavinadematos@gmail.com. 4. Unit of Interventional Radiology, Department of Diagnostic Imaging, E.O. Galliera Hospital, Genoa, Italy. 5. Unit of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Diagnostic Imaging, E.O. Galliera Hospital, Genoa, Italy. 6. Medical Physics Unit, Department of Diagnostic Imaging, E.O. Galliera Hospital, Genoa, Italy. 7. Prostate Unit, Department of Urology, E.O. Galliera Hospital, Genoa, Italy. 8. Unit of Radiotherapy, Department of Diagnostic Imaging, E.O. Galliera Hospital, Genoa, Italy.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the diagnostic value of retrospectively fused PET/MRI by comparing the detection rates (DRs) of fused 64CuCl2 PET/MRI vs. fused 18F-Choline PET/MRI in patients with suspected prostatic cancer (PCa) recurrence. The secondary objective was to compare the DRs of fused PET/MRI vs. those of the separate imaging modalities. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated 50 PCa patients with biochemical relapse after radical prostatectomy (RP) or radiotherapy (RT). All patients underwent 64CuCl2 PET/CT, 18F-Choline PET/CT, and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) within 15 days. Fused 64CuCl2-PET/MRI and fused 18F-Choline PET/MRI images were obtained by retrospective co-registration of MRI and PET images. Experienced readers interpreted the images, and the DRs of each imaging modality were assessed. RESULTS: In the patient-based analysis, overall DRs of fused 64CuCl2 PET/MRI, fused 18F-Choline PET/MRI, 64CuCl2 PET/CT, 18F-Choline PET/CT, and mpMRI were 88%, 68%, 82%, 56%, and 74%, respectively. In the lesion-based analysis, overall DRs of fused 64CuCl2 PET/MRI, fused 18F-Choline PET/MRI, 64CuCl2 PET/CT, 18 F-Choline PET/CT, and mpMRI were 95%, 66%, 87%, 58%, and 71%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Retrospectively fused PET/MRI is able to overcome the limitations of the separate interpretation of the individual imaging modalities. Fused 64CuCl2 PET/MRI provided the highest diagnostic performance in the detection of PCa local relapse.
PURPOSE: To assess the diagnostic value of retrospectively fused PET/MRI by comparing the detection rates (DRs) of fused 64CuCl2 PET/MRI vs. fused 18F-Choline PET/MRI in patients with suspected prostatic cancer (PCa) recurrence. The secondary objective was to compare the DRs of fused PET/MRI vs. those of the separate imaging modalities. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated 50 PCa patients with biochemical relapse after radical prostatectomy (RP) or radiotherapy (RT). All patients underwent 64CuCl2 PET/CT, 18F-Choline PET/CT, and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) within 15 days. Fused 64CuCl2-PET/MRI and fused 18F-Choline PET/MRI images were obtained by retrospective co-registration of MRI and PET images. Experienced readers interpreted the images, and the DRs of each imaging modality were assessed. RESULTS: In the patient-based analysis, overall DRs of fused 64CuCl2 PET/MRI, fused 18F-Choline PET/MRI, 64CuCl2 PET/CT, 18F-Choline PET/CT, and mpMRI were 88%, 68%, 82%, 56%, and 74%, respectively. In the lesion-based analysis, overall DRs of fused 64CuCl2 PET/MRI, fused 18F-Choline PET/MRI, 64CuCl2 PET/CT, 18 F-Choline PET/CT, and mpMRI were 95%, 66%, 87%, 58%, and 71%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Retrospectively fused PET/MRI is able to overcome the limitations of the separate interpretation of the individual imaging modalities. Fused 64CuCl2 PET/MRI provided the highest diagnostic performance in the detection of PCa local relapse.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cancer; Magnetic resonance imaging; PET; Prostate; Recurrence
Authors: Francesco Paparo; Arnoldo Piccardo; Lorenzo Bacigalupo; Andrea Romagnoli; Riccardo Piccazzo; Michela Monticone; Luca Cevasco; Fabio Campodonico; Giuseppe Maria Conzi; Giorgio Carmignani; Gian Andrea Rollandi Journal: Abdom Imaging Date: 2015-08
Authors: Robert M Hicks; Jeffry P Simko; Antonio C Westphalen; Hao G Nguyen; Kirsten L Greene; Li Zhang; Peter R Carroll; Thomas A Hope Journal: Radiology Date: 2018-09-18 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Frederik L Giesel; B Hadaschik; J Cardinale; J Radtke; M Vinsensia; W Lehnert; C Kesch; Y Tolstov; S Singer; N Grabe; S Duensing; M Schäfer; O C Neels; W Mier; U Haberkorn; K Kopka; C Kratochwil Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2016-11-26 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Jeremie Calais; Francesco Ceci; Matthias Eiber; Thomas A Hope; Michael S Hofman; Christoph Rischpler; Tore Bach-Gansmo; Cristina Nanni; Bital Savir-Baruch; David Elashoff; Tristan Grogan; Magnus Dahlbom; Roger Slavik; Jeannine Gartmann; Kathleen Nguyen; Vincent Lok; Hossein Jadvar; Amar U Kishan; Matthew B Rettig; Robert E Reiter; Wolfgang P Fendler; Johannes Czernin Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2019-07-30 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Arnoldo Piccardo; Francesco Paparo; Riccardo Piccazzo; Riccardo Picazzo; Mehrdad Naseri; Paolo Ricci; Andrea Marziano; Lorenzo Bacigalupo; Ennio Biscaldi; Gian Andrea Rollandi; Filippo Grillo-Ruggieri; Mohsen Farsad Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2014-04-30 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Frederik L Giesel; Karina Knorr; Fabian Spohn; Leon Will; Tobias Maurer; Paul Flechsig; Oliver Neels; Kilian Schiller; Horacio Amaral; Wolfgang A Weber; Uwe Haberkorn; Markus Schwaiger; Clemens Kratochwil; Peter Choyke; Vasko Kramer; Klaus Kopka; Matthias Eiber Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2018-07-24 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Veda N Giri; Karen E Knudsen; William K Kelly; Heather H Cheng; Kathleen A Cooney; Michael S Cookson; William Dahut; Scott Weissman; Howard R Soule; Daniel P Petrylak; Adam P Dicker; Saud H AlDubayan; Amanda E Toland; Colin C Pritchard; Curtis A Pettaway; Mary B Daly; James L Mohler; J Kellogg Parsons; Peter R Carroll; Robert Pilarski; Amie Blanco; Ashley Woodson; Alanna Rahm; Mary-Ellen Taplin; Thomas J Polascik; Brian T Helfand; Colette Hyatt; Alicia K Morgans; Felix Feng; Michael Mullane; Jacqueline Powers; Raoul Concepcion; Daniel W Lin; Richard Wender; James Ryan Mark; Anthony Costello; Arthur L Burnett; Oliver Sartor; William B Isaacs; Jianfeng Xu; Jeffrey Weitzel; Gerald L Andriole; Himisha Beltran; Alberto Briganti; Lindsey Byrne; Anne Calvaresi; Thenappan Chandrasekar; David Y T Chen; Robert B Den; Albert Dobi; E David Crawford; James Eastham; Scott Eggener; Matthew L Freedman; Marc Garnick; Patrick T Gomella; Nathan Handley; Mark D Hurwitz; Joseph Izes; R Jeffrey Karnes; Costas Lallas; Lucia Languino; Stacy Loeb; Ana Maria Lopez; Kevin R Loughlin; Grace Lu-Yao; S Bruce Malkowicz; Mark Mann; Patrick Mille; Martin M Miner; Todd Morgan; Jose Moreno; Lorelei Mucci; Ronald E Myers; Sarah M Nielsen; Brock O'Neil; Wayne Pinover; Peter Pinto; Wendy Poage; Ganesh V Raj; Timothy R Rebbeck; Charles Ryan; Howard Sandler; Matthew Schiewer; E Michael D Scott; Brittany Szymaniak; William Tester; Edouard J Trabulsi; Neha Vapiwala; Evan Y Yu; Charnita Zeigler-Johnson; Leonard G Gomella Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2020-06-09 Impact factor: 44.544