PET/MRI with diagnostic MR sequences vs PET/CT in the detection of abdominal and pelvic cancer. Issue 4 (April 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Xin, Jun; Ma, Quanmei; Guo, Qiyong; Sun, Hongzan; Zhang, Shaomin; Liu, Changping; Zhai, Wei
• Is Part Of: European journal of radiology. Volume 85:Issue 4(2016)
• Page Start: 751
• Page End: 759
• Publication Date: 2016-04
• Subjects: Hybrid imaging -- PET/MR -- PET/CT -- Abdominal neoplasms -- Pelvic neoplasms -- 3.0-T MR imaging; Medical radiology -- Periodicals; Radiology -- Periodicals; Radiologie médicale -- Périodiques; Medical radiology; Periodicals; 616.075705
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2016.01.010
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0720-048X

Abstract

Abstract: Objective: Integrated positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance imaging (PET/MRI) scanners provide combined MR-based anatomic and metabolic image information. The aim of this study was to evaluate qualitative and quantitative diagnostic performance of PET/MR with 18 fluoro-2-deoxyglucose ( 18 F-FDG) using a diagnostic MR sequence in patients with abdominal and pelvic tumors, compared to positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT). Materials and methods: Forty five patients underwent a single-injection ( 18 F-FDG), dual-imaging protocol including whole-body PET/CT and subsequent regional PET/MR hybrid imaging. A regional PET/MR scan followed the PET/CT. Images from both modalities were analyzed using a 3-point scale for PET/CT and PET/MR image quality, image alignment, and lesion visibility on PET images. PET-CT/PET-MR functional and anatomical correlation was analyzed. Results: A total of 66 lesions were studied, from which 63 were identified using PET/CT and 59 were identified using PET/MR. The 18 F-FDG PET images had good diagnostic quality ( P < 0.001); alignment was found to be excellent in PET/MR data as well as PET/CT data ( P = 0.102), and there was no difference in lesion visibility ( P = 0.18). The average rating score regarding anatomical correlation for PET-positive lesions was 2.75 for combined MR sequence images and 2.04 for CT, with a significant difference ( P = 0.317), Standard uptake value (SUV) for focal lesions had excellent correlation (SUVmax/mean : R = 0.948/0.948); furthermore, the SUVmean of background organs combined, bone marrow and the muscle tissue showed good correlation ( R = 0.329/0.398/0.298). No correlations were found in the liver and spleen. Conclusions: PET/MR with diagnostic MR sequence was able to detect abdominal and pelvic lesions and had good image quality compared to PET/CT. SUVmax and SUVmean values in focal lesions, and the SUVmean of background organs generally correlated well in abdominal and pelvic oncology patients examined using PET/CT and PET/MRI.