Advertisement

Atlas and Anatomy of PET/MR

  • E. Edmund Kim
  • Hyung-Jun Im
  • Dong Soo Lee
  • Keon Wook Kang
Chapter

Abstract

After the huge success of hybrid positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT), there has been a continuous effort to develop a hybrid positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance image (PET/MR) machine. Recently, a magnetic field–compatible PET component has been developed by a substituting photomultiplier tube (PMT) for an avalanche photodiode (APD) or silicon multiplier (SiPM). This enables development and commercialization of PET/MR. Commercial simultaneous PET/MR is now seeking clinical validation. A simultaneous PET/MR system has several intrinsic advantages over a PET/CT system, including a lower radiation dose, higher soft tissue resolution of anatomic images, and the possibility of using a novel multifunctional PET/MR probe. In addition, there is the potential for the simultaneous acquisition of an anatomic image and PET. PET/MR has a higher soft tissue resolution than PET/CT; therefore the image reader should be well trained in reading normal anatomy and abnormal findings in MR for the proper reading of PET/MR. There are many MR books and atlases available to help understand and read MR images; however, there are few PET/MR atlases. This chapter includes typical PET/MR cases of patients with malignant tumors in the area of the brain, head and neck, chest, abdomen, pelvis, and musculoskeletal system. In each case, pathologic findings and essential surrounding normal structures for interpretation are indicated and named [1–4].

Keywords

PET/MR 18F-Fludeoxyglucose (FDG) Oncology Anatomy Cancer 

References

  1. 1.
    Platzek I, Beuthien-Baumann B, Langner J, Popp M, Schramm G, Ordemann R, et al. PET/MR for therapy response evaluation in malignant lymphoma: initial experience. MAGMA. 2013;26:49–55.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Platzek I, Beuthien-Baumann B, Schneider M, Gudziol V, Langner J, Schramm G, et al. PET/MRI in head and neck cancer: initial experience. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;40:6–11.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rischpler C, Nekolla SG, Dregely I, Schwaiger M. Hybrid PET/MR imaging of the heart: potential, initial experiences, and future prospects. J Nucl Med. 2013;54:402–15.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pace L, Nicolai E, Luongo A, Aiello M, Catalano OA, Soricelli A, et al. Comparison of whole-body PET/CT and PET/MRI in breast cancer patients: lesion detection and quantitation of 18F-deoxyglucose uptake in lesions and in normal organ tissues. Eur J Radiol. 2014;83:289–96.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Catana C, Drzezga A, Heiss WD, Rosen BR. PET/MRI for neurologic applications. J Nucl Med. 2012;53:1916–25.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mohile NA, Deangelis LM, Abrey LE. The utility of body FDG PET in staging primary central nervous system lymphoma. Neurol Oncol. 2008;10:223–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hammoud MA, McCutcheon IE, Elsouki R, Schoppa D, Patt YZ. Colorectal carcinoma and brain metastasis: distribution, treatment, and survival. Ann Surg Oncol. 1996;3:453–63.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Loeffelbein DJ, Souvatzoglou M, Wankerl V, Dinges J, Ritschl LM, Mucke T, et al. Diagnostic value of retrospective PET-MRI fusion in head-and-neck cancer. BMC Cancer. 2014;14:846.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kuhn FP, Hullner M, Mader CE, Kastrinidis N, Huber GF, von Schulthess GK, et al. Contrast-enhanced PET/MR imaging versus contrast-enhanced PET/CT in head and neck cancer: how much MR information is needed? J Nucl Med. 2014;55:551–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Heusch P, Buchbender C, Kohler J, Nensa F, Gauler T, Gomez B, et al. Thoracic staging in lung cancer: prospective comparison of 18F-FDG PET/MR imaging and 18F-FDG PET/CT. J Nucl Med. 2014;55:373–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kohan AA, Kolthammer JA, Vercher-Conejero JL, Rubbert C, Partovi S, Jones R, et al. N staging of lung cancer patients with PET/MRI using a three-segment model attenuation correction algorithm: initial experience. Eur Radiol. 2013;23:3161–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gaeta CM, Vercher-Conejero JL, Sher AC, Kohan A, Rubbert C, Avril N. Recurrent and metastatic breast cancer PET, PET/CT, PET/MRI: FDG and new biomarkers. Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;57:352–66.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lim JS, Yun MJ, Kim MJ, Hyung WJ, Park MS, Choi JY, et al. CT and PET in stomach cancer: preoperative staging and monitoring of response to therapy. Radiographics. 2006;26:143–56.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wu CX, Zhu ZH. Diagnosis and evaluation of gastric cancer by positron emission tomography. World J Gastroenterol. 2014;20:4574–85.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Francis IR, Cohan RH, Varma DGK, Sondak VK. Retroperitoneal sarcomas. Cancer Imaging. 2005;5:89–94.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tatsumi M, Isohashi K, Onishi H, Hori M, Kim T, Higuchi I, et al. 18F-FDG PET/MRI fusion in characterizing pancreatic tumors: comparison to PET/CT. Int J Clin Oncol. 2011;16:408–15.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lee ES, Lee JM. Imaging diagnosis of pancreatic cancer: a state-of-the-art review. World J Gastroenterol. 2014;20:7864–77.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dibble EH, Karantanis D, Mercier G, Peller PJ, Kachnic LA, Subramaniam RM. PET/CT of cancer patients: part 1, pancreatic neoplasms. Am J Roentgenol. 2012;199:952–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ozkan E, Soydal C, Araz M, Kir KM, Ibis E. The role of 18F-FDG PET/CT in detecting colorectal cancer recurrence in patients with elevated CEA levels. Nucl Med Commun. 2012;33:395–402.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bamba Y, Itabashi M, Kameoka S. Management of local recurrence of colorectal cancer: the role of PET/CT. Abdom Imaging. 2011;36:322–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Yong TW, Yuan ZZ, Jun Z, Lin Z, He WZ, Juanqi Z. Sensitivity of PET/MR images in liver metastases from colorectal carcinoma. Hell J Nucl Med. 2011;14:264–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Oliva MR, Saini S. Liver cancer imaging: role of CT, MRI, US and PET. Cancer Imaging. 2004;4 Spec No A:S42–6.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Donati OF, Hany TF, Reiner CS, von Schulthess GK, Marincek B, Seifert B, et al. Value of retrospective fusion of PET and MR images in detection of hepatic metastases: comparison with 18F-FDG PET/CT and Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MRI. J Nucl Med. 2010;51:692–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Akin M, Bozkirli B, Leventoglu S, Unal K, Kapucu LO, Akyurek N, et al. Liver schwannoma incidentally discovered in a patient with breast cancer. Bratisl Lek Listy. 2009;110:298–300.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ota Y, Aso K, Watanabe K, Einama T, Imai K, Karasaki H, et al. Hepatic schwannoma: imaging findings on CT, MRI and contrast-enhanced ultrasonography. World J Gastroenterol. 2012;18:4967–72.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Squillaci E, Manenti G, Mancino S, Ciccio C, Calabria F, Danieli R, et al. Staging of colon cancer: whole-body MRI vs. whole-body PET-CT--initial clinical experience. Abdom Imaging. 2008;33: 676–88.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Partovi S, Kohan A, Paspulati R, Ros P, Herrmann K. PET/MR in colorectal cancer. In: Carrio I, Ros P, editors. PET/MRI. Heidelberg, Berlin: Springer; 2014. p. 95–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sala E, Wakely S, Senior E, Lomas D. MRI of malignant neoplasms of the uterine corpus and cervix. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007;188:1577–87.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Zhang S, Xin J, Guo Q, Ma J, Ma Q, Sun H, et al. Defining PET tumor volume in cervical cancer with hybrid PET/MRI: a comparative study. Nucl Med Commun. 2014;35:712–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Son H, Kositwattanarerk A, Hayes MP, Chuang L, Rahaman J, Heiba S, et al. PET/CT evaluation of cervical cancer: spectrum of disease. Radiographics. 2010;30:1251–68.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Schuler MK, Richter S, Beuthien-Baumann B, Platzek I, Kotzerke J, van den Hoff J, et al. PET/MRI imaging in high-risk sarcoma: first findings and solving clinical problems. Case Rep Oncol Med. 2013;2013:793927.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Partovi S, Kohan AA, Zipp L, Faulhaber P, Kosmas C, Ros PR, et al. Hybrid PET/MR imaging in two sarcoma patients—clinical benefits and implications for future trials. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2014;7:640–8.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Suzuki R, Watanabe H, Yanagawa T, Sato J, Shinozaki T, Suzuki H, et al. PET evaluation of fatty tumors in the extremity: possibility of using the standardized uptake value (SUV) to differentiate benign tumors from liposarcoma. Ann Nucl Med. 2005;19:661–70.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Byun BH, Kong CB, Lim I, Kim BI, Choi CW, Song WS, et al. Early response monitoring to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in osteosarcoma using sequential (1)(8)F-FDG PET/CT and MRI. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;41:1553–62.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Brenner W, Bohuslavizki KH, Eary JF. PET imaging of osteosarcoma. J Nucl Med. 2003;44:930–42.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Im HJ, Kim TS, Park SY, Min HS, Kim JH, Kang HG, et al. Prediction of tumour necrosis fractions using metabolic and volumetric 18F-FDG PET/CT indices, after one course and at the completion of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, in children and young adults with osteosarcoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012;39:39–49.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • E. Edmund Kim
    • 1
  • Hyung-Jun Im
    • 2
  • Dong Soo Lee
    • 3
  • Keon Wook Kang
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Radiological SciencesSchool of Medicine University of California at IrvineIrvineUSA
  2. 2.Department of Nuclear MedicineSeoul National UniversitySeoulRepublic of Korea
  3. 3.Department of Nuclear Medicine and Department of Molecular Medicine and Biopharmaceutical SciencesSeoul National UniversitySeoulRepublic of Korea
  4. 4.Department of Nuclear Medicine and Cancer Research InstituteSeoul National UniversitySeoulRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations