Advertisement

Hybrid PET/MRI in major cancers: a scoping review

  • Anni MorsingEmail author
  • Malene Grubbe Hildebrandt
  • Mie Holm Vilstrup
  • Sara Elisabeth Wallenius
  • Oke Gerke
  • Henrik Petersen
  • Allan Johansen
  • Thomas Lund Andersen
  • Poul Flemming Høilund-Carlsen
Review Article
  • 692 Downloads
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Oncology – General

Abstract

Purpose

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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.

Conclusion

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.

Keywords

PET/MRI PET/CT Oncology Staging 18F-FDG 

Notes

Acknowledgements

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

None.

Ethical approval

This article does not describe any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Supplementary material

259_2019_4402_MOESM1_ESM.docx (14 kb)
Supplemental Data S1 (DOCX 13 kb)
259_2019_4402_MOESM2_ESM.docx (31 kb)
Supplemental Data S2 (DOCX 31 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Peters MD, Godfrey CM, Khalil H, McInerney P, Parker D, Soares CB. Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015;13:141–6.  https://doi.org/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000050.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O'Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169:467–73.  https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ. 2009;339:b2535.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2535.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 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. 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. 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
  7. 7.
    Vrachimis A, Burg MC, Wenning C, Allkemper T, Weckesser M, Schafers M, et al. [(18)F]FDG PET/CT outperforms [(18)F]FDG PET/MRI in differentiated thyroid cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016;43:212–20.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-015-3195-2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 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
  9. 9.
    Binse I, Poeppel TD, Ruhlmann M, Gomez B, Umutlu L, Bockisch A, et al. Imaging with (124)I in differentiated thyroid carcinoma: is PET/MRI superior to PET/CT? Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016;43:1011–7.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-015-3288-y.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Catalano OA, Daye D, Signore A, Iannace C, Vangel M, Luongo A, et al. Staging performance of whole-body DWI, PET/CT and PET/MRI in invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast. Int J Oncol. 2017;51:281–8.  https://doi.org/10.3892/ijo.2017.4012.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 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. 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
  13. 13.
    Catalano OA, Nicolai E, Rosen BR, Luongo A, Catalano M, Iannace C, et al. Comparison of CE-FDG-PET/CT with CE-FDG-PET/MR in the evaluation of osseous metastases in breast cancer patients. Br J Cancer. 2015;112:1452–60.  https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2015.112.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Taneja S, Jena A, Goel R, Sarin R, Kaul S. Simultaneous whole-body (18)F-FDG PET-MRI in primary staging of breast cancer: a pilot study. Eur J Radiol. 2014;83:2231–9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2014.09.008.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 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. 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. 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. 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
  19. 19.
    Souvatzoglou M, Eiber M, Takei T, Furst S, Maurer T, Gaertner F, et al. Comparison of integrated whole-body [11C]choline PET/MR with PET/CT in patients with prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;40:1486–99.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-013-2467-y.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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
  27. 27.
    Catalano OA, Coutinho AM, Sahani DV, Vangel MG, Gee MS, Hahn PF, et al. Colorectal cancer staging: comparison of whole-body PET/CT and PET/MR. Abdom Radiol (NY). 2017;42:1141–51.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-016-0985-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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
  29. 29.
    Pham MT, Rajic A, Greig JD, Sargeant JM, Papadopoulos A, McEwen SA. A scoping review of scoping reviews: advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency. Res Synth Methods. 2014;5:371–85.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1123.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 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
  31. 31.
    Chandarana H, Heacock L, Rakheja R, DeMello LR, Bonavita J, Block TK, et al. Pulmonary nodules in patients with primary malignancy: comparison of hybrid PET/MR and PET/CT imaging. Radiology. 2013;268:874–81.  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.13130620.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 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. 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
  34. 34.
    Groheux D, Cochet A, Humbert O, Alberini JL, Hindie E, Mankoff D. (18)F-FDG PET/CT for staging and restaging of breast cancer. J Nucl Med. 2016;57(Suppl 1):17S–26S.  https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.115.157859.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Riedl CC, Slobod E, Jochelson M, Morrow M, Goldman DA, Gonen M, et al. Retrospective analysis of 18F-FDG PET/CT for staging asymptomatic breast cancer patients younger than 40 years. J Nucl Med. 2014;55:1578–83.  https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.114.143297.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Hoilund-Carlsen PF, Hess S, Werner TJ, Alavi A. Cancer metastasizes to the bone marrow and not to the bone: time for a paradigm shift! Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018;45:893–7.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-018-3959-6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anni Morsing
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Malene Grubbe Hildebrandt
    • 1
    • 3
    • 4
  • Mie Holm Vilstrup
    • 1
  • Sara Elisabeth Wallenius
    • 1
  • Oke Gerke
    • 1
  • Henrik Petersen
    • 1
  • Allan Johansen
    • 1
  • Thomas Lund Andersen
    • 1
    • 2
  • Poul Flemming Høilund-Carlsen
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Nuclear MedicineOdense University HospitalOdenseDenmark
  2. 2.MAgNetic Resonance Technology for Response Adapted Radiotherapy (MANTRA)Odense University HospitalOdenseDenmark
  3. 3.Research Unit of Clinical Physiology and Nuclear Medicine, Department of Clinical ResearchUniversity of Southern DenmarkOdenseDenmark
  4. 4.Centre for Innovative Medical Technology (CIMT)Odense University HospitalOdenseDenmark

Personalised recommendations