Search

Purpose: Imaging is central to the diagnosis and management of Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma (PDAC). This study evaluated if positron emission tomography (PET)/magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) elicited treatment modifications in PDAC when compared to standard of care imaging (SCI)., Procedures: This retrospective study included consecutive patients with PDAC who underwent 2-deoxy-2-[ 18 F]fluoro-D-glucose ([ 18 F]F-FDG) PET/MRI and SCI from May 2017 to January 2019. SCI included abdominal computed tomography (CT), MRI, and/or PET/CT. For patients who had more than one pair of PET/MRI and SCI, each management decision was independently evaluated. Treatment strategies based on each modality were extracted from electronic medical records. Follow-up was evaluated until January 2020., Results: Twenty-five patients underwent 37 PET/MRI's, mean age was 65 ± 9 years and 13 (13/25, 52 %) were men. 49 % (18/37, 95 % CI 33-64 %) of the PET/MRI scans changed clinical management. Whether the SCI included a PET/CT or not did not significantly modify the probability of management change (OR = 0.9, 95 % CI 0.2-4, p = 1). One hundred percent (33/33) of the available follow-up data confirmed PET/MRI findings., Conclusions: PET/MRI significantly changed PDAC management, consistently across the different SCI modalities it was compared to. These findings suggest a role for PET/MRI in the management of PDAC.

Purpose: The role of positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance (PET/MR) in evaluating the local extent of rectal cancer remains uncertain. This study aimed to investigate the possible role of PET/MR versus magnetic resonance (MR) in clinically staging rectal cancer., Methods: This retrospective two-center cohort study of 62 patients with untreated rectal cancer investigated the possible role of baseline staging PET/MR versus stand-alone MR in determination of clinical stage. Two readers reviewed T and N stage, mesorectal fascia involvement, tumor length, distance from the anal verge, sphincter involvement, and extramural vascular invasion (EMVI). Sigmoidoscopy, digital rectal examination, and follow-up imaging, along with surgery when available, served as the reference standard., Results: PET/MR outperformed MR in evaluating tumor size (42.5 ± 21.03 mm per the reference standard, 54 ± 20.45 mm by stand-alone MR, and 44 ± 20 mm by PET/MR, P = 0.004), and in identifying N status (correct by MR in 36/62 patients [58%] and by PET/MR in 49/62 cases [79%]; P = 0.02) and external sphincter infiltration (correct by MR in 6/10 and by PET/MR in 9/10; P = 0.003). No statistically significant differences were observed in relation to any other features., Conclusion: PET/MR provides a more precise assessment of the local extent of rectal cancers in evaluating cancer length, N status, and external sphincter involvement. PET/MR offers the opportunity to improve clinical decision-making, especially when evaluating low rectal tumors with possible external sphincter involvement.