Advertisement

18F-FDG PET/MR Refines Evaluation in Newly Diagnosed Metastatic Urethral Adenocarcinoma

  • Riccardo LaudicellaEmail author
  • Guido Davidzon
  • Shreyas Vasanawala
  • Sergio Baldari
  • Andrei Iagaru
Interesting Image

Abstract

We described the clinical impact of 18F-FDG PET/MR in refining the evaluation of a 39-year-old female with newly diagnosed metastatic urethral adenocarcinoma. We detailed the diagnostic imaging workup focusing our attention on the CT, MR, and 18F-FDG PET/MR different findings. In this case, 18F-FDG PET/MR imaging evaluation resulted not only effective but also altered staging and spared additional invasive procedures in the assessment of a metastatic urethral adenocarcinoma. Combining a highly sensitive PET with the increase tissue resolution of MR (PET/MR) may improve abdominal and pelvic lesion detection outperforming PET/CT for this indication.

Keywords

Urethral adenocarcinoma 18F-FDG PET/MR PET/CT MR CT 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

Laudicella R., Davidzon G., Vasanawala S., Baldari S., and Iagaru A declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. For this type of study, formal consent is not required. All applicable international, national, and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed.

References

  1. 1.
    Potter M, Newport E, Morten KJ. The Warburg effect: 80 years on. Biochem Soc Trans. 2016;44:1499–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tagliabue L, Del Sole A. Appropriate use of positron emission tomography with [(18)F]fluorodeoxyglucose for staging of oncology patients. Eur J Intern Med. 2014;25:6–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ha HK, Koo PJ, Kim SJ. Diagnostic accuracy of F-18 FDG PET/CT for preoperative lymph node staging in newly diagnosed bladder cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Oncology. 2018;95:31–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kitajima K, Yamamoto S, Fukushima K, et al. Update on advances in molecular PET in urological oncology. Jpn J Radiol. 2016;34:470–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Drzezga A, Souvatzoglou M, Eiber M, et al. First clinical experience with integrated whole-body PET/MR: comparison to PET/CT in patients with oncologic diagnoses. J Nucl Med. 2012;53:845–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Quick HH, von Gall C, Zeilinger M, et al. Integrated whole-body PET/MR hybrid imaging: clinical experience. Investig Radiol. 2013;48:280–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wehrl HF, Sauter AW, Divine MR, et al. Combined PET/MR: a technology becomes mature. J Nucl Med. 2015;56:165–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Xin J, Ma Q, Guo Q, et al. PET/MRI with diagnostic MR sequences vs PET/CT in the detection of abdominal and pelvic cancer. Eur J Radiol. 2016;85:751–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schwartz M, Gavane SC, Bou-Ayache J, 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Korean Society of Nuclear Medicine 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biomedical and Dental Sciences and of Morpho-functional Imaging, Nuclear Medicine UnitUniversity of MessinaMessinaItaly
  2. 2.Division of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Department of RadiologyStanford UniversityStanfordUSA
  3. 3.Department of RadiologyStanford UniversityStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations