Search

Purpose: Radiation therapy (RT) is an effective treatment for unresectable cholangiocarcinoma (CC). Accurate tumor volume delineation is critical in achieving high rates of local control while minimizing treatment-related toxicity. This study compares 18F-FDG PET/MR to MR and CT for target volume delineation for RT planning. Methods: We retrospectively included 22 patients with newly diagnosed unresectable primary CC who underwent 18F-FDG PET/MR for initial staging. Gross tumor volume (GTV) of the primary mass (GTVM) and lymph nodes (GTVLN) were contoured on CT images, MR images, and PET/MR fused images and compared among modalities. The dice similarity coefficient (DSC) was calculated to assess spatial coverage between different modalities. Results: GTVMPET/MR (median: 94 ml, range 16–655 ml) was significantly greater than GTVMMR (69 ml, 11–635 ml) (p = 0.0001) and GTVMCT (96 ml, 4–564 ml) (p = 0.035). There was no significant difference between GTVMCT and GTVMMR (p = 0.078). Subgroup analysis of intrahepatic and extrahepatic tumors showed that the median GTVMPET/MR was significantly greater than GTVMMR in both groups (117.5 ml, 22–655 ml vs. 102.5 ml, 22–635 ml, p = 0.004 and 37 ml, 16–303 ml vs. 34 ml, 11–207 ml, p = 0.042, respectively). The GTVLNPET/MR (8.5 ml, 1–27 ml) was significantly higher than GTVLNCT (5 ml, 4–16 ml) (p = 0.026). GTVPET/MR had the highest similarity to the GTVMR, i.e., DSCPET/MR-MR (0.82, 0.25–1.00), compared to DSC PET/MR-CT of 0.58 (0.22–0.87) and DSCMR-CT of 0.58 (0.03–0.83). Conclusion: 18F-FDG PET/MR-based CC delineation yields greater GTVs and detected a higher number of positive lymph nodes compared to CT or MR, potentially improving RT planning by reducing the risk of geographic misses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Positron emission tomography (PET) using fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG) combined with magnetic resonance imaging (MR) is an emerging hybrid modality that has shown utility in evaluating abdominal and pelvic disease entities. Together, the high soft tissue contrast and metabolic/functional imaging capabilities make this modality ideal for oncologic imaging in many organ systems. Its clinical utility continues to evolve and future research will help solidify its role in oncologic imaging. In this manuscript, we aim to (1) provide an overview of the various PET/MR systems, describing the strengths and weaknesses of each system, and (2) review the oncologic applications for 18F-FDG PET/MR in the abdomen and pelvis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to compare the diagnostic value of a one-step to a two-step staging algorithm utilizing 18F-FDG PET/MRI in breast cancer patients.Methods: A total of 38 patients (37 females and one male, mean age 57 ± 10 years; range 31-78 years) with newly diagnosed, histopathologically proven breast cancer were prospectively enrolled in this trial. All PET/MRI examinations were assessed for local tumor burden and metastatic spread in two separate reading sessions: (1) One-step algorithm comprising supine whole-body 18F-FDG PET/MRI, and (2) Two-step algorithm comprising a dedicated prone 18F-FDG breast PET/MRI and supine whole-body 18F-FDG PET/MRI.Results: On a patient based analysis the two-step algorithm correctly identified 37 out of 38 patients with breast carcinoma (97%), while five patients were missed by the one-step 18F-FDG PET/MRI algorithm (33/38; 87% correct identification). On a lesion-based analysis 56 breast cancer lesions were detected in the two-step algorithm and 44 breast cancer lesions could be correctly identified in the one-step 18F-FDG PET/MRI (79%), resulting in statistically significant differences between the two algorithms (p = 0.0015). For axillary lymph node evaluation sensitivity, specificity and accuracy was 93%, 95 and 94%, respectively. Furthermore, distant metastases could be detected in seven patients in both algorithms.Conclusion: The results demonstrate the necessity and superiority of a two-step 18F-FDG PET/MRI algorithm, comprising dedicated prone breast imaging and supine whole-body imaging, when compared to the one-step algorithm for local and whole-body staging in breast cancer patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simultaneous data collection for positron emission tomography and magnetic resonance imaging (PET/MR) is now a reality. While the full benefits of concurrently acquiring PET and MR data and the potential added clinical value are still being evaluated, initial studies have identified several important potential pitfalls in the interpretation of fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET/MRI in oncologic whole-body imaging, the majority of which being related to the errors in the attenuation maps created from the MR data. The purpose of this article was to present such pitfalls and artifacts using case examples, describe their etiology, and discuss strategies to overcome them. Using a case-based approach, we will illustrate artifacts related to (1) Inaccurate bone tissue segmentation; (2) Inaccurate air cavities segmentation; (3) Motion-induced misregistration; (4) RF coils in the PET field of view; (5) B0 field inhomogeneity; (6) B1 field inhomogeneity; (7) Metallic implants; (8) MR contrast agents. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: To investigate and compare the diagnostic performance of 18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG) PET/MR and MR alone in whole-body primary staging and restaging of patients with rectal cancer. Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed to evaluate diagnostic accuracies of combined reading of PET/MR and MR alone in T, N and M staging against the reference standard. Inter-observer agreement regarding TNM staging was calculated separately for PET/MR and MR alone. Results: A total of 39 studies of 34 patients could be evaluated. Diagnostic accuracies of PET/MR and MR alone were the same in locoregional T staging. For predicting N+ stage, the specificity of combined reading of PET and MR (0.917 and 0.833 for reader 1 and 2, respectively) was slightly higher than MR alone (0.833 and 0.75) without significantly increasing the overall accuracy (0.783 vs. 0.783 and 0.783 vs. 0.739). For detecting distant metastasis, the sensitivities of PET/MR and MR alone were shown equal (1.0 vs. 1.0 and 0.938 vs. 0.938), while the specificity of PET/MR was marginally lower (0.87 vs. 0.913 and 0.826 vs. 0.87). The inter-observer agreements were good to excellent in M (κ = 0.64 and 0.637 for PET/MR and MR alone, p < 0.001) and N staging (0.819 and 0.738, p < 0.001).Conclusion: PET did not yield a significant improvement in diagnostic accuracy of PET/MR in TNM staging of rectal cancer, since MR alone facilitated accurate classification of disease stage with good to excellent inter-observer agreement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]