Hybrid PET/MRI in major cancers: a scoping review
- 692 Downloads
PET/MRI was introduced for clinical use in 2011 and is now an established modality for the imaging of brain and certain pelvic cancers, whereas clinical use for the imaging of other forms of cancer is not yet widespread. We therefore systematically investigated what has been published on the use of PET/MRI compared to PET/CT in the imaging of cancers outside the brain, focusing on clinical areas of application related to diagnosis, staging and restaging.
A systematic search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library was performed. Studies evaluating the diagnostic performance of simultaneous PET/MRI in cancer patients were chosen.
A total of 3,138 publications were identified and 116 published during the period 2012–2018 were included and were grouped according to the major cancer forms: 13 head and neck (HNC), 9 breast (BC), 21 prostate (PC), 14 gynaecological, 13 gastrointestinal (GIC), and 46 various cancers. Data from studies comparing PET/MRI and PET/CT for staging/restaging suggested the superiority of 18F-FDG PET/MRI for the detection of tumour extension and retropharyngeal lymph node metastases in nasopharyngeal cancer, and for the detection of liver metastases and possibly bone marrow metastases in high-risk BC. FDG PET/MRI tended to be inferior for the detection of lung metastases in HNC and BC. 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/MRI was superior to PET/CT for the detection of local PC recurrence. FDG PET/MRI was superior to FDG PET/CT for the detection of local tumour invasion in cervical cancer and had higher accuracy for the detection of liver metastases in colorectal cancer.
The scoping review methodology resulted in the identification of a huge number of records, of which less than 5% were suitable for inclusion and only a limited number allowed conclusions on the advantages/disadvantages of PET/MRI compared to PET/CT in the oncological setting. There was evidence to support the use of FDG PET/MRI in staging of nasopharyngeal cancer and high-risk BC. Preliminary data indicate the superiority of PET/MRI for the detection of local recurrence in PC, local tumour invasion in cervical cancer, and liver metastases in colorectal cancer. These conclusions are based on small datasets and need to be further explored.
KeywordsPET/MRI PET/CT Oncology Staging 18F-FDG
Research librarian L. Østengaard, PhD, University Library of Southern Denmark and Head of Department, and Associate Professor J.S. Madsen, Biochemistry and Immunology, Institute of Regional Health Research, University of Southern Denmark are acknowledged for help with the literature search.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflicts of interest
This article does not describe any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
- 4.Chan SC, Yeh CH, Yen TC, Ng SH, Chang JT, Lin CY, et al. Clinical utility of simultaneous whole-body (18)F-FDG PET/MRI as a single-step imaging modality in the staging of primary nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018;45:1297–308. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-018-3986-3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 5.Schaarschmidt BM, Heusch P, Buchbender C, Ruhlmann M, Bergmann C, Ruhlmann V, et al. Locoregional tumour evaluation of squamous cell carcinoma in the head and neck area: a comparison between MRI, PET/CT and integrated PET/MRI. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016;43:92–102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-015-3145-z.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 6.Kubiessa K, Purz S, Gawlitza M, Kuhn A, Fuchs J, Steinhoff KG, et al. Initial clinical results of simultaneous 18F-FDG PET/MRI in comparison to 18F-FDG PET/CT in patients with head and neck cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;41:639–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-013-2633-2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 8.Vrachimis A, Stegger L, Wenning C, Noto B, Burg MC, Konnert JR, et al. [(68)Ga]DOTATATE PET/MRI and [(18)F]FDG PET/CT are complementary and superior to diffusion-weighted MR imaging for radioactive-iodine-refractory differentiated thyroid cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016;43:1765–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-016-3378-5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 11.Sawicki LM, Grueneisen J, Schaarschmidt BM, Buchbender C, Nagarajah J, Umutlu L, et al. Evaluation of (18)F-FDG PET/MRI, (18)F-FDG PET/CT, MRI, and CT in whole-body staging of recurrent breast cancer. Eur J Radiol. 2016;85:459–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2015.12.010.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 12.Melsaether AN, Raad RA, Pujara AC, Ponzo FD, Pysarenko KM, Jhaveri K, et al. Comparison of whole-body (18)F FDG PET/MR imaging and whole-body (18)F FDG PET/CT in terms of lesion detection and radiation dose in patients with breast cancer. Radiology. 2016;281:193–202. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2016151155.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 15.Domachevsky L, Bernstine H, Goldberg N, Nidam M, Stern D, Sosna J, et al. Early (68)GA-PSMA PET/MRI acquisition: assessment of lesion detectability and PET metrics in patients with prostate cancer undergoing same-day late PET/CT. Clin Radiol. 2017;72:944–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2017.06.116.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 16.Eiber M, Rauscher I, Souvatzoglou M, Maurer T, Schwaiger M, Holzapfel K, et al. Prospective head-to-head comparison of (11)C-choline-PET/MR and (11)C-choline-PET/CT for restaging of biochemical recurrent prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017;44:2179–88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-017-3797-y.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 17.Freitag MT, Radtke JP, Afshar-Oromieh A, Roethke MC, Hadaschik BA, Gleave M, et al. Local recurrence of prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy is at risk to be missed in (68)Ga-PSMA-11-PET of PET/CT and PET/MRI: comparison with mpMRI integrated in simultaneous PET/MRI. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017;44:776–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-016-3594-z.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 18.Freitag MT, Radtke JP, Hadaschik BA, Kopp-Schneider A, Eder M, Kopka K, et al. Comparison of hybrid (68)Ga-PSMA PET/MRI and (68)Ga-PSMA PET/CT in the evaluation of lymph node and bone metastases of prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016;43:70–83. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-015-3206-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 20.Schwartz M, Gavane SC, Bou-Ayache J, Kolev V, Zakashansky K, Prasad-Hayes M, et al. Feasibility and diagnostic performance of hybrid PET/MRI compared with PET/CT for gynecological malignancies: a prospective pilot study. Abdom Radiol (NY). 2018;43:3462–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-018-1665-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 21.Beiderwellen K, Grueneisen J, Ruhlmann V, Buderath P, Aktas B, Heusch P, et al. [(18)F]FDG PET/MRI vs. PET/CT for whole-body staging in patients with recurrent malignancies of the female pelvis: initial results. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015;42:56–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-014-2902-8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 22.Kirchner J, Sawicki LM, Suntharalingam S, Grueneisen J, Ruhlmann V, Aktas B, et al. Whole-body staging of female patients with recurrent pelvic malignancies: ultra-fast 18F-FDG PET/MRI compared to 18F-FDG PET/CT and CT. PLoS One. 2017;12:e0172553. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0172553.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 23.Grueneisen J, Schaarschmidt BM, Heubner M, Suntharalingam S, Milk I, Kinner S, et al. Implementation of FAST-PET/MRI for whole-body staging of female patients with recurrent pelvic malignancies: a comparison to PET/CT. Eur J Radiol. 2015;84:2097–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2015.08.010.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 24.Sawicki LM, Deuschl C, Beiderwellen K, Ruhlmann V, Poeppel TD, Heusch P, et al. Evaluation of (68)Ga-DOTATOC PET/MRI for whole-body staging of neuroendocrine tumours in comparison with (68)Ga-DOTATOC PET/CT. Eur Radiol. 2017;27:4091–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-4803-2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 25.Berzaczy D, Giraudo C, Haug AR, Raderer M, Senn D, Karanikas G, et al. Whole-body 68Ga-DOTANOC PET/MRI versus 68Ga-DOTANOC PET/CT in patients with neuroendocrine tumors: a prospective study in 28 patients. Clin Nucl Med. 2017;42:669–74. https://doi.org/10.1097/rlu.0000000000001753.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 26.Joo I, Lee JM, Lee DH, Lee ES, Paeng JC, Lee SJ, et al. Preoperative assessment of pancreatic cancer with FDG PET/MR imaging versus FDG PET/CT plus contrast-enhanced multidetector CT: a prospective preliminary study. Radiology. 2017;282:149–59. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2016152798.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 28.Brendle C, Schwenzer NF, Rempp H, Schmidt H, Pfannenberg C, la Fougere C, et al. Assessment of metastatic colorectal cancer with hybrid imaging: comparison of reading performance using different combinations of anatomical and functional imaging techniques in PET/MRI and PET/CT in a short case series. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016;43:123–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-015-3137-z.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 30.Munn Z, Peters MDJ, Stern C, Tufanaru C, McArthur A, Aromataris E. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18:143. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 32.Sawicki LM, Grueneisen J, Buchbender C, Schaarschmidt BM, Gomez B, Ruhlmann V, et al. Comparative performance of (18)F-FDG PET/MRI and (18)F-FDG PET/CT in detection and characterization of pulmonary lesions in 121 oncologic patients. J Nucl Med. 2016;57:582–6. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.115.167486.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 33.Rauscher I, Eiber M, Furst S, Souvatzoglou M, Nekolla SG, Ziegler SI, et al. PET/MR imaging in the detection and characterization of pulmonary lesions: technical and diagnostic evaluation in comparison to PET/CT. J Nucl Med. 2014;55:724–9. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.113.129247.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar