Ali Pirasteh1,2, Christopher Riedl2, Marius Erik Mayerhoefer2, Romina Grazia Giancipoli2,3, Steven Mark Larson2, Lisa Bodei2. 1. Department of Radiology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 600 Highland Ave, E1/382C, Madison, WI 53792. 2. Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Ave, New York, NY 10065. 3. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Sapienza University of Rome, Piazzale Aldo Moro 5, 00185, Rome, Italy.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the current literature on technical feasibility and diagnostic value of PET/MRI in management of patients with neuroendocrine tumors (NETs). METHODS: A systematic literature search of the PubMed/MEDLINE database identified studies that evaluated the role of simultaneous PET/MRI for the evaluation of neuroendocrine tumors in human subjects. Exclusion criteria included studies lacking simultaneous PET/MRI, absence of other than attenuation-correction MRI pulse sequences, and case reports. No data-pooling or statistical analysis was performed due to the small number of articles and heterogeneity of the methodologies. RESULTS: From the 21 identified articles, five were included, which demonstrated successful technical feasibility of simultaneous PET/MRI through various imaging protocols in a total of 105 patients. All articles demonstrated equal or superior detection of liver lesions by PET/MRI over PET/CT. While one study reported superior detection of bone lesions by PET/MRI, two demonstrated favorable detection by PET/CT. Two studies demonstrated superiority of PET/CT in detection of nodal metastases; three studies reported the pitfall of PET/MRI in detection of lung lesion. CONCLUSION: The current literature reports successful technical feasibility of PET/MRI for imaging of NETs. While whole-body PET/CT in conjunction with an abdominal MRI may serve as a comprehensive approach for baseline staging, follow up with PET/MRI may be preferred for those with liver-only disease. Another possible role for PET/MRI is to provide a multiparametric approach to follow up of response to treatment. With further advances in MRI imaging acquisitions and post-processing techniques, PET/MRI may become more applicable to a broader group of patients with NETs, and possibly the imaging modality of choice for this patient population.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the current literature on technical feasibility and diagnostic value of PET/MRI in management of patients with neuroendocrine tumors (NETs). METHODS: A systematic literature search of the PubMed/MEDLINE database identified studies that evaluated the role of simultaneous PET/MRI for the evaluation of neuroendocrine tumors in human subjects. Exclusion criteria included studies lacking simultaneous PET/MRI, absence of other than attenuation-correction MRI pulse sequences, and case reports. No data-pooling or statistical analysis was performed due to the small number of articles and heterogeneity of the methodologies. RESULTS: From the 21 identified articles, five were included, which demonstrated successful technical feasibility of simultaneous PET/MRI through various imaging protocols in a total of 105 patients. All articles demonstrated equal or superior detection of liver lesions by PET/MRI over PET/CT. While one study reported superior detection of bone lesions by PET/MRI, two demonstrated favorable detection by PET/CT. Two studies demonstrated superiority of PET/CT in detection of nodal metastases; three studies reported the pitfall of PET/MRI in detection of lung lesion. CONCLUSION: The current literature reports successful technical feasibility of PET/MRI for imaging of NETs. While whole-body PET/CT in conjunction with an abdominal MRI may serve as a comprehensive approach for baseline staging, follow up with PET/MRI may be preferred for those with liver-only disease. Another possible role for PET/MRI is to provide a multiparametric approach to follow up of response to treatment. With further advances in MRI imaging acquisitions and post-processing techniques, PET/MRI may become more applicable to a broader group of patients with NETs, and possibly the imaging modality of choice for this patient population.
Authors: J K Ramage; W W De Herder; G Delle Fave; P Ferolla; D Ferone; T Ito; P Ruszniewski; A Sundin; W Weber; Z Zheng-Pei; B Taal; A Pascher Journal: Neuroendocrinology Date: 2016-01-05 Impact factor: 4.914
Authors: B Niederle; U-F Pape; F Costa; D Gross; F Kelestimur; U Knigge; K Öberg; M Pavel; A Perren; C Toumpanakis; J O'Connor; D O'Toole; E Krenning; N Reed; R Kianmanesh Journal: Neuroendocrinology Date: 2016-01-12 Impact factor: 4.914
Authors: Ferdinand Seith; Christina Schraml; Gerald Reischl; Konstantin Nikolaou; Christina Pfannenberg; Christian la Fougère; Nina Schwenzer Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2018-06-30 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Paul Flechsig; Christian M Zechmann; Julian Schreiweis; Clemens Kratochwil; Daniel Rath; Lawrence H Schwartz; Heinz-Peter Schlemmer; Hans-Ulrich Kauczor; Uwe Haberkorn; Frederik L Giesel Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2015-05-08 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Thomas A Hope; Miguel Hernandez Pampaloni; Eric Nakakura; Henry VanBrocklin; James Slater; Salma Jivan; Carina Mari Aparici; Judy Yee; Emily Bergsland Journal: Abdom Imaging Date: 2015-08
Authors: Marco Armbruster; Steven Sourbron; Alexander Haug; Christoph J Zech; Michael Ingrisch; Christoph J Auernhammer; Konstantin Nikolaou; Philipp M Paprottka; Carsten Rist; Maximilian F Reiser; Wieland H Sommer Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2014-01 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Alessandra Farchione; Vittoria Rufini; Maria Gabriella Brizi; Donato Iacovazzo; Alberto Larghi; Roberto Maria Massara; Gianluigi Petrone; Andrea Poscia; Giorgio Treglia; Laura De Marinis; Alessandro Giordano; Guido Rindi; Lorenzo Bonomo Journal: Pancreas Date: 2016-03 Impact factor: 3.327
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: Navid Hasani; Faraz Farhadi; Michael A Morris; Moozhan Nikpanah; Arman Rhamim; Yanji Xu; Anne Pariser; Michael T Collins; Ronald M Summers; Elizabeth Jones; Eliot Siegel; Babak Saboury Journal: PET Clin Date: 2022-01
Authors: Vincent Vandecaveye; Raphaëla C Dresen; Elin Pauwels; Sofie Van Binnebeek; Ragna Vanslembrouck; Kristof Baete; Felix M Mottaghy; Paul M Clement; Kristiaan Nackaerts; Eric Van Cutsem; Chris Verslype; Frederik De Keyzer; Christophe M Deroose Journal: Radiol Imaging Cancer Date: 2022-05