Jad S Husseini1, Bárbara Juarez Amorim2, Angel Torrado-Carvajal3,4, Vinay Prabhu5, David Groshar6, Lale Umutlu7, Ken Herrmann8, Lina García Cañamaque9, José Ramón García Garzón10, William E Palmer1, Pedram Heidari1, Tiffany Ting-Fang Shih11, Jacob Sosna12, Cristina Matushita13, Juliano Cerci14, Marcelo Queiroz15, Valdair Francisco Muglia16, Marcello H Nogueira-Barbosa17, Ronald J H Borra18, Thomas C Kwee18, Andor W J M Glaudemans19, Laura Evangelista20, Marco Salvatore21,22, Alberto Cuocolo22,23, Andrea Soricelli22,24, Christian Herold25, Andrea Laghi26, Marius Mayerhoefer27, Umar Mahmood1, Ciprian Catana3, Heike E Daldrup-Link28, Bruce Rosen3, Onofrio A Catalano29. 1. Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. 2. Division of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Radiology, School of Medical Sciences,, State University of Campinas, Campinas, Brazil. 3. Athinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. 4. Medical Image Analysis and Biometry Laboratory, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, Madrid, Spain. 5. Department of Radiology, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY, USA. 6. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Assuta Medical Center, Tel Aviv, and Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel. 7. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology and Neuroradiology, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany. 8. Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany. 9. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Hospital Universitario Madrid Sanchinarro, Madrid, Spain. 10. Department of Nuclear Medicine, CETIR-ERESA, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. 11. Department of Radiology and Medical Imaging, National Taiwan University College of Medicine and Hospital, Taipei City, Taiwan. 12. Department of Radiology, Hadassah Hebrew University Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel. 13. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Hospital São Lucas of Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil. 14. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Quanta Diagnóstico Nuclear, Curitiba, Brazil. 15. Department of Radiology and Oncology, Hospital das Clinicas HCFMUSP, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil. 16. Department of Medical Images, Radiation Therapy and Oncohematology, Ribeirao Preto Medical School, Hospital Clinicas, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Prêto, Brazil. 17. Department of Medical Imaging, Hematology and Clinical Oncology, Ribeirão Preto Medical School. University of São Paulo (USP), Ribeirão Prêto, Brazil. 18. Medical Imaging Center, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. 19. Medical Imaging Center, Department of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. 20. Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Padova, Padua, Italy. 21. Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Università Suor Orsola Benincasa di Napoli, Naples, Italy. 22. Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Institute for Hospitalization and Healthcare (IRCCS) SDN, Istituto di Ricerca, Naples, Italy. 23. Department of Advanced Biomedical Science, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy. 24. Department of Movement and Wellness Sciences, Parthenope University of Naples, Naples, Italy. 25. Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna General Hospital, Vienna, Austria. 26. Department of Radiology, University of Rome "La Sapienza", Rome, Italy. 27. Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 28. Department of Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA. 29. Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. ocatalano@mgh.harvard.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: MR is an important imaging modality for evaluating musculoskeletal malignancies owing to its high soft tissue contrast and its ability to acquire multiparametric information. PET provides quantitative molecular and physiologic information and is a critical tool in the diagnosis and staging of several malignancies. PET/MR, which can take advantage of its constituent modalities, is uniquely suited for evaluating skeletal metastases. We reviewed the current evidence of PET/MR in assessing for skeletal metastases and provided recommendations for its use. METHODS: We searched for the peer reviewed literature related to the usage of PET/MR in the settings of osseous metastases. In addition, expert opinions, practices, and protocols of major research institutions performing research on PET/MR of skeletal metastases were considered. RESULTS: Peer-reviewed published literature was included. Nuclear medicine and radiology experts, including those from 13 major PET/MR centers, shared the gained expertise on PET/MR use for evaluating skeletal metastases and contributed to a consensus expert opinion statement. [18F]-FDG and non [18F]-FDG PET/MR may provide key advantages over PET/CT in the evaluation for osseous metastases in several primary malignancies. CONCLUSION: PET/MR should be considered for staging of malignancies where there is a high likelihood of osseous metastatic disease based on the characteristics of the primary malignancy, hight clinical suspicious and in case, where the presence of osseous metastases will have an impact on patient management. Appropriate choice of tumor-specific radiopharmaceuticals, as well as stringent adherence to PET and MR protocols, should be employed.
BACKGROUND: MR is an important imaging modality for evaluating musculoskeletal malignancies owing to its high soft tissue contrast and its ability to acquire multiparametric information. PET provides quantitative molecular and physiologic information and is a critical tool in the diagnosis and staging of several malignancies. PET/MR, which can take advantage of its constituent modalities, is uniquely suited for evaluating skeletal metastases. We reviewed the current evidence of PET/MR in assessing for skeletal metastases and provided recommendations for its use. METHODS: We searched for the peer reviewed literature related to the usage of PET/MR in the settings of osseous metastases. In addition, expert opinions, practices, and protocols of major research institutions performing research on PET/MR of skeletal metastases were considered. RESULTS: Peer-reviewed published literature was included. Nuclear medicine and radiology experts, including those from 13 major PET/MR centers, shared the gained expertise on PET/MR use for evaluating skeletal metastases and contributed to a consensus expert opinion statement. [18F]-FDG and non [18F]-FDG PET/MR may provide key advantages over PET/CT in the evaluation for osseous metastases in several primary malignancies. CONCLUSION: PET/MR should be considered for staging of malignancies where there is a high likelihood of osseous metastatic disease based on the characteristics of the primary malignancy, hight clinical suspicious and in case, where the presence of osseous metastases will have an impact on patient management. Appropriate choice of tumor-specific radiopharmaceuticals, as well as stringent adherence to PET and MR protocols, should be employed.
Authors: V Schulz; I Torres-Espallardo; S Renisch; Z Hu; N Ojha; P Börnert; M Perkuhn; T Niendorf; W M Schäfer; H Brockmann; T Krohn; A Buhl; R W Günther; F M Mottaghy; G A Krombach Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2010-10-05 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Matthias Eiber; Axel Martinez-Möller; Michael Souvatzoglou; Konstantin Holzapfel; Anja Pickhard; Dennys Löffelbein; Ivan Santi; Ernst J Rummeny; Sibylle Ziegler; Markus Schwaiger; Stephan G Nekolla; Ambros J Beer Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2011-06-18 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Axel Martinez-Möller; Michael Souvatzoglou; Gaspar Delso; Ralph A Bundschuh; Christophe Chefd'hotel; Sibylle I Ziegler; Nassir Navab; Markus Schwaiger; Stephan G Nekolla Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2009-03-16 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: C Burger; G Goerres; S Schoenes; A Buck; A H R Lonn; G K Von Schulthess Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2002-04-19 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Basrull N Bhaludin; Nina Tunariu; Dow-Mu Koh; Christina Messiou; Alicia F Okines; Sophie E McGrath; Alistair E Ring; Marina M Parton; Bhupinder Sharma; Tanja Gagliardi; Steven D Allen; Romney Pope; Stephen R D Johnston; Kate Downey Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2022-04-06 Impact factor: 7.034