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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
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 was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
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.
Potter M, Newport E, Morten KJ. The Warburg effect: 80 years on. Biochem Soc Trans. 2016;44:1499–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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
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
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
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
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
Wehrl HF, Sauter AW, Divine MR, et al. Combined PET/MR: a technology becomes mature. J Nucl Med. 2015;56:165–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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
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