Ayaz Aghayev1, Michael K Cheezum2, Michael L Steigner3, Negareh Mousavi4, Robert Padera5, Ana Barac6, Raymond Y Kwong7, Marcelo F Di Carli8, Ron Blankstein8. 1. Cardiovascular Imaging Program, Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. aaghayev@bwh.harvard.edu. 2. Department of Cardiology, Parkview Health, Fort Wayne, IN, USA. 3. Cardiovascular Imaging Program, Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 4. Cardiovascular Division, McGill University Health Center, Montreal, QC, Canada. 5. Department of Pathology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. 6. MedStar Heart and Vascular Institute, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA. 7. Cardiovascular Imaging Program, Cardiovascular Division, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 8. Cardiovascular Imaging Program, Cardiovascular Division and Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of CMR and FDG-PET/CT and their complementary role to distinguish benign vs malignant cardiac masses. METHODS: Retrospectively assessed patients with cardiac mass who underwent CMR and FDG-PET/CT within a month between 2003 and 2018. RESULTS: 72 patients who had CMR and FDG-PET/CT were included. 25 patients (35%) were diagnosed with benign and 47 (65%) were diagnosed with malignant masses. 56 patients had histological correlation: 9 benign and 47 malignant masses. CMR and FDG-PET/CT had a high accuracy in differentiating benign vs malignant masses, with the presence of CMR features demonstrating a higher sensitivity (98%), while FDG uptake with SUVmax/blood pool ≥ 3.0 demonstrating a high specificity (88%). Combining multiple (> 4) CMR features and FDG uptake (SUVmax/blood pool ratio ≥ 3.0) yielded a sensitivity of 85% and specificity of 88% to diagnose malignant masses. Over a mean follow-up of 2.6 years (IQR 0.3-3.8 years), risk-adjusted mortality were highest among patients with an infiltrative border on CMR (adjusted HR 3.1; 95% CI 1.5-6.5; P = .002) or focal extracardiac FDG uptake (adjusted HR 3.8; 95% CI 1.9-7.7; P < .001). CONCLUSION: Although CMR and FDG-PET/CT can independently diagnose benign and malignant masses, the combination of these modalities provides complementary value in select cases.
BACKGROUND: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of CMR and FDG-PET/CT and their complementary role to distinguish benign vs malignant cardiac masses. METHODS: Retrospectively assessed patients with cardiac mass who underwent CMR and FDG-PET/CT within a month between 2003 and 2018. RESULTS: 72 patients who had CMR and FDG-PET/CT were included. 25 patients (35%) were diagnosed with benign and 47 (65%) were diagnosed with malignant masses. 56 patients had histological correlation: 9 benign and 47 malignant masses. CMR and FDG-PET/CT had a high accuracy in differentiating benign vs malignant masses, with the presence of CMR features demonstrating a higher sensitivity (98%), while FDG uptake with SUVmax/blood pool ≥ 3.0 demonstrating a high specificity (88%). Combining multiple (> 4) CMR features and FDG uptake (SUVmax/blood pool ratio ≥ 3.0) yielded a sensitivity of 85% and specificity of 88% to diagnose malignant masses. Over a mean follow-up of 2.6 years (IQR 0.3-3.8 years), risk-adjusted mortality were highest among patients with an infiltrative border on CMR (adjusted HR 3.1; 95% CI 1.5-6.5; P = .002) or focal extracardiac FDG uptake (adjusted HR 3.8; 95% CI 1.9-7.7; P < .001). CONCLUSION: Although CMR and FDG-PET/CT can independently diagnose benign and malignant masses, the combination of these modalities provides complementary value in select cases.
Authors: James N Kirkpatrick; Tiffany Wong; James E Bednarz; Kirk T Spencer; Lissa Sugeng; R Parker Ward; Jeanne M DeCara; Lynn Weinert; Thomas Krausz; Roberto M Lang Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2004-04-21 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Pablo Pazos-López; Eduardo Pozo; Maria E Siqueira; Inés García-Lunar; Matthew Cham; Adam Jacobi; Frank Macaluso; Valentín Fuster; Jagat Narula; Javier Sanz Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2014-08-13
Authors: Jonathan W Weinsaft; Han W Kim; Dipan J Shah; Igor Klem; Anna Lisa Crowley; Rhoda Brosnan; Olga G James; Manesh R Patel; John Heitner; Michele Parker; Eric J Velazquez; Charles Steenbergen; Robert M Judd; Raymond J Kim Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2008-07-08 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Kambiz Rahbar; Harald Seifarth; Michael Schäfers; Lars Stegger; Andreas Hoffmeier; Tilmann Spieker; Klaus Tiemann; David Maintz; Hans Heinrich Scheld; Otmar Schober; Matthias Weckesser Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2012-05-10 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Negareh Mousavi; Michael K Cheezum; Ayaz Aghayev; Robert Padera; Tomas Vita; Michael Steigner; Edward Hulten; Marcio Sommer Bittencourt; Sharmila Dorbala; Marcelo F Di Carli; Raymond Y Kwong; Ruth Dunne; Ron Blankstein Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2019-01-08 Impact factor: 5.501
Authors: David Kassop; Michael S Donovan; Michael K Cheezum; Binh T Nguyen; Neil B Gambill; Ron Blankstein; Todd C Villines Journal: Curr Cardiovasc Imaging Rep Date: 2014