Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of integrated whole-body PET/MR and PET/CT: Is PET/MR alternative to PET/CT in routine clinical oncology?

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Annals of Nuclear Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To compare the diagnostic accuracy of whole-body PET/CT and integrated PET/MR in relation to the total scan time durations.

Methods

One hundred and twenty-three (123) patients (40 males and 83 females; mean age 59.6 years; range 20–83 years) with confirmed primary cancer and clinical suspicion of metastatic disease underwent whole-body 18F-FDG-PET/CT and 18F-FDG-PET/MR. Data acquisition was done after intravenous administration of 110–301 MBq radioactivity of 18F-FDG, and PET/MR data were acquired after the PET/CT data acquisition. The mean uptake times for PET/CT and PET/MR acquisition were 68.0 ± 8.0 and 98.0 ± 14 min, respectively. Total scan time was 20.0 and 25.0 min for whole-body PET/CT and PET/MR imaging.

Results

The reconstructed PET/CT and PET/MR data detected 333/355 (93.8 %) common lesions in 111/123 (90.2 %) patients. PET/CT and PET/MR alone detected 348/355 and 340/355 lesions, respectively. No significant (p = 0.08) difference was observed for the overall detection efficiency between the two techniques. On the other hand, a significant difference was observed between the two techniques for the detection of lung (p = 0.003) and cerebrospinal (p = 0.007) lesions. The 15 lesions identified by PET/CT only included 8 lung, 3 lymph nodes, 2 bone, and 1 each of peritoneal and adrenal gland lesions. On the other hand, 7 (6 brain metastatic lesions and 1 bone lesion) were identified by PET/MR only.

Conclusion

Integrated PET/MR is a feasible whole-body imaging modality and may score better than PET/CT for the detection of brain metastases. To further prove diagnostic utility, this technique requires further clinical validation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Czernin J, Herrmann K. The potential of PET/MRI imaging in oncology: a comment to a summary report of the first PET/MRI workshop in Tuebingen in 2012. Mol Imaging Biol. 2013;15:372–3.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Czernin J, Ta L, Herrmann K. Does PET/MR imaging improve cancer assessments? Literature evidence from more than 900 patients. J Nucl Med. 2014;55(Supplement 2):59S–62S.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Eiber M, Takei T, Souvatzoglou M, Mayerhoefer ME, Fürst S, Gaertner FC, et al. Performance of whole-body integrated 18F-FDG PET/MR in comparison to PET/CT for evaluation of malignant bone lesions. J Nucl Med. 2014;55:191–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Huellner MW, Appenzeller P, Kuhn FP, Husmann L, Pietsch CM, Burger IA, et al. Whole-body nonenhanced PET/MR versus PET/CT in the staging and restaging of cancers: preliminary observations. Radiology. 2014;273:859–69.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Afshar-Oromieh A, Haberkorn U, Schlemmer HP, Fenchel M, Eder M, Eisenhut M, et al. Comparison of PET/CT and PET/MRI hybrid systems using a 68 Ga-labelled PSMA ligand for the diagnosis of recurrent prostate cancer: initial experience. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;41:887–97.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Souvatzoglou M, Eiber M, Takei T, Fürst 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Partovi S, Kohan A, Vercher-Conejero JL, Rubbert C, Margevicius S, Schluchter MD, et al. Qualitative and quantitative performance of 18F-FDG-PET/MRI versus 18F-FDG-PET/CT in patients with head and neck cancer. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2014;35:1970–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Varoquaux A, Rager O, Poncet A, Delattre BM, Ratib O, Becker CD, et al. Detection and quantification of focal uptake in head and neck tumours: (18)F-FDG PET/MR versus PET/CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;41:462–75.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Boss A, Bisdas S, Kolb A, Hofmann M, Ernemann U, Claussen CD, et al. Hybrid PET/MRI of intracranial masses: initial experiences and comparison to PET/CT. J Nucl Med. 2010;51:1198–205.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Drzezga A, Souvatzoglou M, Eiber M, Beer AJ, Fürst S, Martinez-Möller A, 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Quick HH, von Gall C, Zeilinger M, Wiesmüller M, Braun H, Ziegler S, et al. Integrated whole-body PET/MR hybrid imaging: clinical experience. Invest Radiol. 2013;48:280–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Al-Nabhani KZ, Syed R, Michopoulou S, Alkalbani J, Afaq A, Panagiotidis E, et al. Qualitative and quantitative comparison of PET/CT and PET/MR imaging in clinical practice. J Nucl Med. 2014;55:88–94.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Catalano OA, Rosen BR, Sahani DV, Hahn PF, Guimaraes AR, Vangel MG, et al. Clinical impact of PET/MR imaging in patients with cancer undergoing same-day PET/CT: initial experience in 134 patients—a hypothesis-generating exploratory study. Radiology. 2013;269:857–69.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Delso G, Furst S, Jakoby B, Ladebeck R, Ganter C, Nekolla SG, et al. Performance measurements of the siemens mMR integrated whole-body PET/MR scanner. J Nucl Med. 2011;52:1914–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Rauscher I, Eiber M, Fürst 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Stolzmann P, Veit-Haibach P, Chuck N, Rossi C, Frauenfelder T, Alkadhi H, et al. Detection rate, location, and size of pulmonary nodules in trimodality PET/CT-MR: comparison of low-dose CT and Dixon-based MR imaging. Invest Radiol. 2013;48:241–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Akamatsu G, Ishikawa K, Mitsumoto K, Taniguchi T, Ohya N, Baba S, et al. Improvement in PET/CT image quality with a combination of point-spread function and time-of-flight in relation to reconstruction parameters. J Nucl Med. 2012;53:1716–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Prieto E, Domínguez-Prado I, García-Velloso MJ, Peñuelas I, Richter JÁ, Martí-Climent JM. Impact of time-of-flight and point-spread-function in SUV quantification for oncological PET. Clin Nucl Med. 2013;38:103–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Zhuang H, Pourdehnad M, Lambright ES, Yamamoto AJ, Lanuti M, Li P, et al. Dual time point 18F-FDG PET imaging for differentiating malignant from inflammatory processes. J Nucl Med. 2001;42:1412–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Lan XL, Zhang YX, Wu ZJ, Jia Q, Wei H, Gao ZR. The value of dual time point (18)F-FDG PET imaging for the differentiation between malignant and benign lesions. Clin Radiol. 2008;63:756–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We are grateful for the assistance of Seiichi Takenoshita, doctors of the Department of Organ Regulatory Surgery and Radiology, and the staff of Advanced Clinical Research Center for their support in performing this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Fukushima Medical University Hospital, 1, Hikarigaoka, Fukushima, Fukushima Prefecture, Japan

    Shirou Ishii, Masayuki Miyajima, Ken Kikuchi & Fumio Shishido

  2. Department of Radiological Technology, Faculty of Health Sciences, Hokkaido University of Science, Sapporo, Hokkaido, Japan

    Daisuke Shimao

  3. Advanced Clinical Research Center, Fukushima Medical University, Fukushima, Japan

    Takamitsu Hara & Hiroshi Ito

  4. Department of Organ Regulatory Surgery, Fukushima Medical University, Fukushima, Japan

    Masashi Takawa & Kensuke Kumamoto

Authors
  1. Shirou Ishii
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Daisuke Shimao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Takamitsu Hara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Masayuki Miyajima
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ken Kikuchi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Masashi Takawa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Kensuke Kumamoto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Hiroshi Ito
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Fumio Shishido
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shirou Ishii.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ishii, S., Shimao, D., Hara, T. et al. Comparison of integrated whole-body PET/MR and PET/CT: Is PET/MR alternative to PET/CT in routine clinical oncology?. Ann Nucl Med 30, 225–233 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12149-015-1050-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12149-015-1050-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation