18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography/Magnetic Resonance in Lymphoma: Comparison With 18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography and With the Addition of Magnetic Resonance Diffusion-Weighted Imaging. Issue 3 (March 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Giraudo, Chiara; Raderer, Markus; Karanikas, Georgios; Weber, Michael; Kiesewetter, Barbara; Dolak, Werner; Simonitsch-Klupp, Ingrid; Mayerhoefer, Marius E.
• Is Part Of: Investigative radiology. Volume 51:Issue 3(2016:Mar.)
• Publication Date: 2016-03
• Subjects: 18F-FDG PET/MR -- DWI -- lymphoma; Diagnosis, Radioscopic -- Periodicals; Radiology, Medical -- Periodicals; 616.0757
• DOI: 10.1097/RLI.0000000000000218
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0020-9996

Abstract

Abstract : Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare 18 F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET)/magnetic resonance (MR) (with and without diffusion-weighted imaging [DWI]) to 18 F-FDG PET/computed tomography (CT), with regard to the assessment of nodal and extranodal involvement, in patients with Hodgkin lymphoma and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, without restriction to FDG-avid subytpes. Materials and Methods: Patients with histologically proven lymphoma were enrolled in this prospective, institutional review board–approved study. After a single 18 F-FDG injection, patients consecutively underwent 18 F-FDG PET[Fraction Slash]CT and 18 F-FDG PET/MR on the same day for staging or restaging. Three sets of images were analyzed separately: 18 F-FDG PET/CT, 18 F-FDG PET/MR without DWI, and 18 F-FDG PET/MR with DWI. Region-based agreement and examination-based sensitivity and specificity were calculated for 18 F-FDG PET/CT, 18 F-FDG PET/MR without DWI, and 18 F-FDG PET/MR DWI. Maximum and mean standardized uptake values (SUVmax, SUVmean ) on 18 F-FDG PET/CT and 18 F-FDG PET/MR were compared and correlated with minimum and mean apparent diffusion coefficients (ADCmin, ADCmean ). Results: Thirty-four patients with a total of 40 examinations were included. Examination-based sensitivities for 18 F-FDG PET/CT, 18 F-FDG PET/MR, and 18 F-FDG PET/MR DWI were 82.1%, 85.7%, and 100%, respectively; specificities were 100% for all 3 techniques; and accuracies were 87.5%, 90%, and 100%, respectively. 18 F-FDG PET/CT was false negative in 5 of 40 examinations (all with mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue lymphoma), and 18 F-FDG PET/MR (without DWI) was false negative in 4 of 40 examinations. Region-based percentages of agreement were 99% (κ, 0.95) between 18 F-FDG PET/MR DWI and 18 F-FDG PET/CT, 99.2% (κ, 0.96) between 18 F-FDG PET/MR and 18 F-FDG PET/CT, and 99.4% (κ, 0.97) between 18 F-FDG PET/MR DWI and 18 F-FDG PET/MR. There was a strong correlation between 18 F-FDG PET/CT and 18 F-FDG PET/MR for SUVmax ( r = 0.83) and SUVmean ( r = 0.81) but no significant correlation between ADCmin and SUVmax ( 18 F-FDG PET/CT: r = 0.46, P = 0.65; 18 F-FDG PET/MR: r = 0.64, P = 0.53) or between ADCmean and SUVmean (respectively, r = −0.14, P = 0.17 for the correlation with PET/CT and r = −0.14, P = 0.14 for the correlation with PET/MR). Conclusions: 18 F-FDG PET/MR and 18 F-FDG PET/CT show a similar diagnostic performance in lymphoma patients. However, if DWI is included in the 18 F-FDG PET/MR protocol, results surpass those of 18 F-FDG PET/CT because of the higher sensitivity of DWI for mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue lymphomas.