Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

PET/MRI for Clinical Pediatric Oncologic Imaging

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover PET/MRI in Oncology

Abstract

PET/MRI has significant potential advantages over PET/CT for use in pediatric populations including decreasing radiation dose, reducing exposure to sedation and anesthesia, reducing the need for gadolinium-based MR contrast agents, and increasing convenience to children and their families through combining PET and MRI acquisition into a single imaging session. PET/MRI is a clinical reality and is in routine use at a number of academic centers as well as in a few private practices with some centers performing pediatric imaging. Although promising, PET/MRI for pediatric oncology faces significant challenges including the high cost and relatively limited availability of PET/MRI systems, the lack of standardization across centers, limited evidence demonstrating the superiority of PET/MRI compared to PET/CT and other imaging modalities, and variable institutional utilization of PET and whole-body MR imaging in the diagnostic evaluation of children with cancer.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Smith TA. The rate-limiting step for tumor [18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose (FDG) incorporation. Nucl Med Biol. 2001;28:1–4.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Ganapathy V, Thangaraju M, Prasad PD. Nutrient transporters in cancer: relevance to Warburg hypothesis and beyond. Pharmacol Ther. 2009;121:29–40.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Potter M, Newport E, Morten KJ. The Warburg effect: 80 years on. Biochem Soc Trans. 2016;44:1499–505.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Huang C, McConathy J. Radiolabeled amino acids for oncologic imaging. J Nucl Med. 2013;54:1007–10.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Albert NL, Weller M, Suchorska B, et al. Response assessment in neuro-oncology working group and European Association for Neuro-Oncology recommendations for the clinical use of PET imaging in gliomas. Neuro-Oncology. 2016;18:1199.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Dunkl V, Cleff C, Stoffels G, et al. The usefulness of dynamic O-(2-18F-fluoroethyl)-L-tyrosine PET in the clinical evaluation of brain tumors in children and adolescents. J Nucl Med. 2015;56:88–92.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Kroiss A, Putzer D, Uprimny C, et al. Functional imaging in pheochromocytoma and neuroblastoma with 68Ga-DOTA-Tyr 3-octreotide positron emission tomography and 123I-metaiodobenzylguanidine. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;38:865–73.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Hope TA, Pampaloni MH, Nakakura E, et al. Simultaneous 68Ga-DOTA-TOC PET/MRI with gadoxetate disodium in patients with neuroendocrine tumor. Abdom Imaging. 2015;40:1432–40.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Kunz WG, Jungblut LM, Kazmierczak PM, et al. Improved detection of transosseous meningiomas using 68Ga-DOTATATE PET-CT compared to contrast-enhanced MRI. J Nucl Med. 2017;58(10):1580–87. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.117.191932. Epub 2017 Apr 27

  10. Afshar-Oromieh A, Giesel FL, Linhart HG, et al. Detection of cranial meningiomas: comparison of 68Ga-DOTATOC PET/CT and contrast-enhanced MRI. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012;39:1409–15.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kwekkeboom DJ, Kam BL, van Essen M, et al. Somatostatin-receptor-based imaging and therapy of gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. Endocr Relat Cancer. 2010;17:R53–73.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Strosberg J, El-Haddad G, Wolin E, et al. Phase 3 trial of 177Lu-Dotatate for Midgut neuroendocrine tumors. N Engl J Med. 2017;376:125–35.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Archier A, Varoquaux A, Garrigue P, et al. Prospective comparison of 68Ga-DOTATATE and 18F-FDOPA PET/CT in patients with various pheochromocytomas and paragangliomas with emphasis on sporadic cases. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016;43:1248–57.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Barthlen W, Blankenstein O, Mau H, et al. Evaluation of [18F]fluoro-L-DOPA positron emission tomography-computed tomography for surgery in focal congenital hyperinsulinism. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2008;93:869–75.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Liu YL, Lu MY, Chang HH, et al. Diagnostic FDG and FDOPA positron emission tomography scans distinguish the genomic type and treatment outcome of neuroblastoma. Oncotarget. 2016;7:18774–86.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Barthlen W, Varol E, Empting S, et al. Surgery in focal congenital hyperinsulinism (CHI) - the “hyperinsulinism Germany international” experience in 30 children. Pediatr Endocrinol Rev. 2016;14:129–37.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Dercle L, Deandreis D, Terroir M, Leboulleux S, Lumbroso J, Schlumberger M. Evaluation of 124I PET/CT and 124I PET/MRI in the management of patients with differentiated thyroid cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016;43:1006–10.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Vrachimis A, Weckesser M, Schafers M, Stegger L. Imaging of differentiated thyroid carcinoma: 124I-PET/MRI may not be superior to 124I-PET/CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016;43:1183–4.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Binse I, Poeppel TD, Ruhlmann M, et al. Imaging with 124I in differentiated thyroid carcinoma: is PET/MRI superior to PET/CT? Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016;43:1011–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Cistaro A, Quartuccio N, Caobelli F, et al. 124I-MIBG: a new promising positron-emitting radiopharmaceutical for the evaluation of neuroblastoma. Nucl Med Rev Cent East Eur. 2015;18:102–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Hartung-Knemeyer V, Rosenbaum-Krumme S, Buchbender C, et al. Malignant pheochromocytoma imaging with [124I]mIBG PET/MR. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2012;97:3833–4.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Gatidis S, Schmidt H, Gucke B, et al. Comprehensive oncologic imaging in infants and preschool children with substantially reduced radiation exposure using combined simultaneous 18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance imaging: a direct comparison to 18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography. Investig Radiol. 2016;51:7–14.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Schafer JF, Gatidis S, Schmidt H, et al. Simultaneous whole-body PET/MR imaging in comparison to PET/CT in pediatric oncology: initial results. Radiology. 2014;273:220–31.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Tian J, Fu L, Yin D, et al. Does the novel integrated PET/MRI offer the same diagnostic performance as PET/CT for oncological indications? PLoS One. 2014;9:e90844.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Heusch P, Buchbender C, Beiderwellen K, et al. Standardized uptake values for [18F] FDG in normal organ tissues: comparison of whole-body PET/CT and PET/MRI. Eur J Radiol. 2013;82:870.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Spick C, Herrmann K, Czernin J. 18F-FDG PET/CT and PET/MRI perform equally well in cancer: evidence from studies on more than 2,300 patients. J Nucl Med. 2016;57:420–30.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Eiber M, Martinez-Moller A, Souvatzoglou M, et al. Value of a Dixon-based MR/PET attenuation correction sequence for the localization and evaluation of PET-positive lesions. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;38:1691–701.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Rascon J, Rageliene L, Stankeviciene S, et al. An assessment of iron overload in children treated for cancer and nonmalignant hematologic disorders. Eur J Pediatr. 2014;173:1137–46.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Taouli B, Koh DM. Diffusion-weighted MR imaging of the liver. Radiology. 2010;254:47–66.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Mohd Zaki F, Moineddin R, Grant R, Chavhan GB. Accuracy of pre-contrast imaging in abdominal magnetic resonance imaging of pediatric oncology patients. Pediatr Radiol. 2016;46:1684–93.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Murata N, Gonzalez-Cuyar LF, Murata K, et al. Macrocyclic and other non-group 1 gadolinium contrast agents deposit low levels of gadolinium in brain and bone tissue: preliminary results from 9 patients with normal renal function. Investig Radiol. 2016;51:447–53.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Murata N, Murata K, Gonzalez-Cuyar LF, Maravilla KR. Gadolinium tissue deposition in brain and bone. Magn Reson Imaging. 2016;34:1359–65.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Klenk C, Gawande R, Uslu L, et al. Ionising radiation-free whole-body MRI versus 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose PET/CT scans for children and young adults with cancer: a prospective, non-randomised, single-centre study. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15:275–85.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Sawicki LM, Grueneisen J, Buchbender C, et al. Evaluation of the outcome of lung nodules missed on 18F-FDG PET/MRI compared with 18F-FDG PET/CT in patients with known malignancies. J Nucl Med. 2016;57:15–20.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Raad RA, Friedman KP, Heacock L, Ponzo F, Melsaether A, Chandarana H. Outcome of small lung nodules missed on hybrid PET/MRI in patients with primary malignancy. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2016;43:504–11.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Lee KH, Park CM, Lee SM, et al. Pulmonary nodule detection in patients with a primary malignancy using hybrid PET/MRI: is there value in adding contrast-enhanced MR imaging? PLoS One. 2015;10:e0129660.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Burris NS, Johnson KM, Larson PE, et al. Detection of small pulmonary nodules with ultrashort echo time sequences in oncology patients by using a PET/MR system. Radiology. 2016;278:239–46.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. National Research Council (U.S.) Committee to assess health risks from exposure to low level of ionizing radiation. In:Health risks from exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation: BEIR VII phase, vol. 2. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Ponisio MR, McConathy J, Laforest R, Khanna G. Evaluation of diagnostic performance of whole-body simultaneous PET/MRI in pediatric lymphoma. Pediatr Radiol. 2016;46:1258–68.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Sher AC, Seghers V, Paldino MJ, et al. Assessment of sequential PET/MRI in comparison with PET/CT of pediatric lymphoma: a prospective study. Am J Roentgenol. 2016;206:623–31.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Harrison JD, Streffer C. The ICRP protection quantities, equivalent and effective dose: their basis and application. Radiat Prot Dosim. 2007;127:12–8.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Valentin J. The 2007 recommendations of the international commission on radiological protection. ICRP publication 103. Ann ICRP. 2007;37:1–332.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. ICRP. Radiation dose to patients from radiopharmaceuticals. Addendum 3 to ICRP publication 53. ICRP publication 106. Approved by the Commission in October 2007. Ann ICRP. 2008;38:1–197.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Raman SP, Mahesh M, Blasko RV, Fishman EK. CT scan parameters and radiation dose: practical advice for radiologists. J Am Coll Radiol. 2013;10:840–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Miglioretti DL, Johnson E, Williams A, et al. The use of computed tomography in pediatrics and the associated radiation exposure and estimated cancer risk. JAMA Pediatr. 2013;167:700–7.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Seith F, Schmidt H, Kunz J, et al. Simulation of tracer dose reduction in 18F FDG PET/MRI: Effects on oncologic reading, image quality and artifacts. J Nucl Med. 2017;58(10):1699–1705.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Gatidis S, Schmidt H, la Fougere C, Nikolaou K, Schwenzer NF, Schafer JF. Defining optimal tracer activities in pediatric oncologic whole-body 18F-FDG-PET/MRI. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016;43:2283–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Minamimoto R, Levin C, Jamali M, et al. Improvements in PET image quality in time of flight (TOF) simultaneous PET/MRI. Mol Imaging Biol. 2016;18:776–81.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Kaatsch P. Epidemiology of childhood cancer. Cancer Treat Rev. 2010;36:277–85.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Friedman DL, Chen L, Wolden S, et al. Dose-intensive response-based chemotherapy and radiation therapy for children and adolescents with newly diagnosed intermediate-risk Hodgkin lymphoma: a report from the Children’s oncology group study AHOD0031. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:3651–8.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Mauz-Korholz C, Metzger ML, Kelly KM, et al. Pediatric Hodgkin lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:2975–85.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Burkhardt B, Zimmermann M, Oschlies I, et al. The impact of age and gender on biology, clinical features and treatment outcome of non-Hodgkin lymphoma in childhood and adolescence. Br J Haematol. 2005;131:39–49.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Bhatia S, Yasui Y, Robison LL, et al. High risk of subsequent neoplasms continues with extended follow-up of childhood Hodgkin’s disease: report from the late effects study group. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21:4386–94.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Constine LS, Tarbell N, Hudson MM, et al. Subsequent malignancies in children treated for Hodgkin’s disease: associations with gender and radiation dose. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008;72:24–33.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Dores GM, Metayer C, Curtis RE, et al. Second malignant neoplasms among long-term survivors of Hodgkin’s disease: a population-based evaluation over 25 years. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20:3484–94.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Bhakta N, Liu Q, Yeo F, et al. Cumulative burden of cardiovascular morbidity in paediatric, adolescent, and young adult survivors of Hodgkin’s lymphoma: an analysis from the St Jude lifetime cohort study. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17:1325–34.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. Littooij AS, Kwee TC, Enriquez G, et al. Whole-body MRI reveals high incidence of osteonecrosis in children treated for Hodgkin lymphoma. Br J Haematol. 2017;176:637–42.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Guimaraes MD, Noschang J, Teixeira SR, et al. Whole-body MRI in pediatric patients with cancer. Cancer Imaging. 2017;17:6.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Siegel MJ, Acharyya S, Hoffer FA, et al. Whole-body MR imaging for staging of malignant tumors in pediatric patients: results of the American College of Radiology Imaging Network 6660 trial. Radiology. 2013;266:599–609.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Kwee TC, Takahara T, Ochiai R, et al. Complementary roles of whole-body diffusion-weighted MRI and 18F-FDG PET: the state of the art and potential applications. J Nucl Med. 2010;51:1549–58.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Kwee TC, Takahara T, Luijten PR, Nievelstein RA. ADC measurements of lymph nodes: inter- and intra-observer reproducibility study and an overview of the literature. Eur J Radiol. 2010;75:215–20.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Herrmann K, Queiroz M, Huellner MW, et al. Diagnostic performance of FDG-PET/MRI and WB-DW-MRI in the evaluation of lymphoma: a prospective comparison to standard FDG-PET/CT. BMC Cancer. 2015;15:1002.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  64. Weiler-Sagie M, Bushelev O, Epelbaum R, et al. 18F-FDG avidity in lymphoma readdressed: a study of 766 patients. J Nucl Med. 2010;51:25–30.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Montravers F, McNamara D, Landman-Parker J, et al. [18F]FDG in childhood lymphoma: clinical utility and impact on management. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2002;29:1155–65.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Hermann S, Wormanns D, Pixberg M, et al. Staging in childhood lymphoma: differences between FDG-PET and CT. Nuklearmedizin. 2005;44:1–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. London K, Cross S, Onikul E, Dalla-Pozza L, Howman-Giles R. 18F-FDG PET/CT in paediatric lymphoma: comparison with conventional imaging. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;38:274–84.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Furth C, Steffen IG, Amthauer H, et al. Early and late therapy response assessment with [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in pediatric Hodgkin's lymphoma: analysis of a prospective multicenter trial. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:4385–91.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Furth C, Meseck RM, Steffen IG, et al. SUV-measurements and patient-specific corrections in pediatric Hodgkin-lymphoma: is there a benefit for PPV in early response assessment by FDG-PET? Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2012;59:475–80.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Lyons K, Seghers V, Sorensen JI, et al. Comparison of standardized uptake values in normal structures between PET/CT and PET/MRI in a tertiary pediatric hospital: a prospective study. Am J Roentgenol. 2015;205:1094–101.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Hirsch FW, Sattler B, Sorge I, et al. PET/MR in children. Initial clinical experience in paediatric oncology using an integrated PET/MR scanner. Pediatr Radiol. 2013;43:860–75.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  72. Punwani S, Taylor SA, Saad ZZ, et al. Diffusion-weighted MRI of lymphoma: prognostic utility and implications for PET/MRI? Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;40:373–85.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Afaq A, Fraioli F, Sidhu H, et al. Comparison of PET/MRI with PET/CT in the evaluation of disease status in lymphoma. Clin Nucl Med. 2017;42:e1–7.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  74. Radbruch A, Weberling LD, Kieslich PJ, et al. Gadolinium retention in the dentate nucleus and globus pallidus is dependent on the class of contrast agent. Radiology. 2015;275:783–91.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Kirchner J, Deuschl C, Schweiger B, et al. Imaging children suffering from lymphoma: an evaluation of different 18F-FDG PET/MRI protocols compared to whole-body DW-MRI. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017;44:1742.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. American Cancer Society. Cancer facts & figures 2017. Atlanta: American Cancer Society; 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Louis DN, Perry A, Reifenberger G, et al. The 2016 World Health Organization classification of tumors of the central nervous system: a summary. Acta Neuropathol. 2016;131:803–20.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Calcagni ML, Galli G, Giordano A, et al. Dynamic O-(2-[18F]fluoroethyl)-L-tyrosine (F-18 FET) PET for glioma grading: assessment of individual probability of malignancy. Clin Nucl Med. 2011;36:841–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Popperl G, Kreth FW, Mehrkens JH, et al. FET PET for the evaluation of untreated gliomas: correlation of FET uptake and uptake kinetics with tumour grading. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2007;34:1933–42.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Pöpperl G, Kreth FW, Herms J, et al. Analysis of 18F-FET PET for grading of recurrent gliomas: is evaluation of uptake kinetics superior to standard methods? J Nucl Med. 2006;47:393–403.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Galldiks N, Rapp M, Stoffels G, Dunkl V, Sabel M, Langen KJ. Earlier diagnosis of progressive disease during bevacizumab treatment using O-(2-18F-fluorethyl)-L-tyrosine positron emission tomography in comparison with magnetic resonance imaging. Mol Imaging. 2013;12:273–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Galldiks N, Stoffels G, Filss CP, et al. Role of O-(2-18F-fluoroethyl)-L-tyrosine PET for differentiation of local recurrent brain metastasis from radiation necrosis. J Nucl Med. 2012;53:1367–74.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Zukotynski K, Fahey F, Kocak M, et al. 18F-FDG PET and MR imaging associations across a spectrum of pediatric brain tumors: a report from the pediatric brain tumor consortium. J Nucl Med. 2014;55:1473–80.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Patil S, Biassoni L, Borgwardt L. Nuclear medicine in pediatric neurology and neurosurgery: epilepsy and brain tumors. Semin Nucl Med. 2007;37:357–81.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Pirotte BJ, Lubansu A, Massager N, et al. Clinical impact of integrating positron emission tomography during surgery in 85 children with brain tumors. J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2010;5(5):486–99.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Pirotte BJ, Lubansu A, Massager N, Wikler D, Goldman S, Levivier M. Results of positron emission tomography guidance and reassessment of the utility of and indications for stereotactic biopsy in children with infiltrative brainstem tumors. J Neurosurg. 2007;107:392–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Torrens M, Malamitsi J, Karaiskos P, et al. Although non-diagnostic between necrosis and recurrence, FDG PET/CT assists management of brain tumours after radiosurgery. In Vivo. 2016;30:513–20.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Tan H, Chen L, Guan Y, Lin X. Comparison of MRI, F-18 FDG, and 11C-choline PET/CT for their potentials in differentiating brain tumor recurrence from brain tumor necrosis following radiotherapy. Clin Nucl Med. 2011;36:978–81.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Hustinx R, Pourdehnad M, Kaschten B, Alavi A. PET imaging for differentiating recurrent brain tumor from radiation necrosis. Radiol Clin N Am. 2005;43:35–47.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Dankbaar JW, Snijders TJ, Robe PA, et al. The use of 18F-FDG PET to differentiate progressive disease from treatment induced necrosis in high grade glioma. J Neuro-Oncol. 2015;125:167–75.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  91. Nihashi T, Dahabreh IJ, Terasawa T. Diagnostic accuracy of PET for recurrent glioma diagnosis: a meta-analysis. Am J Neuroradiol. 2013;34:944–50. S1–11

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  92. Haining Z, Kawai N, Miyake K, et al. Relation of LAT1/4F2hc expression with pathological grade, proliferation and angiogenesis in human gliomas. BMC Clin Pathol. 2012;12:4.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  93. Nawashiro H, Otani N, Shinomiya N, et al. L-type amino acid transporter 1 as a potential molecular target in human astrocytic tumors. Int J Cancer. 2006;119:484–92.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. Nawashiro H, Otani N, Uozumi Y, et al. High expression of L-type amino acid transporter 1 in infiltrating glioma cells. Brain Tumor Pathol. 2005;22:89–91.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Suchorska B, Jansen NL, Linn J, et al. Biological tumor volume in 18FET-PET before radiochemotherapy correlates with survival in GBM. Neurology. 2015;84:710–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. Kratochwil C, Combs SE, Leotta K, et al. Intra-individual comparison of 18F-FET and 18F-DOPA in PET imaging of recurrent brain tumors. Neuro-Oncology. 2014;16:434–40.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. Pauleit D, Stoffels G, Bachofner A, et al. Comparison of 18F-FET and 18F-FDG PET in brain tumors. Nucl Med Biol. 2009;36:779–87.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. Miyake K, Shinomiya A, Okada M, Hatakeyama T, Kawai N, Tamiya T. Usefulness of FDG, MET and FLT-PET studies for the management of human gliomas. J Biomed Biotechnol. 2012;2012:205818.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  99. Galldiks N, Ullrich R, Schroeter M, Fink GR, Kracht LW. Volumetry of [11C]-methionine PET uptake and MRI contrast enhancement in patients with recurrent glioblastoma multiforme. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2009;37:84.

    PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  100. Juhasz C, Dwivedi S, Kamson DO, Michelhaugh SK, Mittal S. Comparison of amino acid positron emission tomographic radiotracers for molecular imaging of primary and metastatic brain tumors. Mol Imaging. 2014;13:7290201400015.

    Google Scholar 

  101. Grosu AL, Astner ST, Riedel E, et al. An interindividual comparison of O-(2-[18F]fluoroethyl)-L-tyrosine (FET)- and L-[methyl-11C]methionine (MET)-PET in patients with brain gliomas and metastases. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011;81:1049–58.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  102. Becherer A, Karanikas G, Szabo M, et al. Brain tumour imaging with PET: a comparison between [18F]fluorodopa and [11C]methionine. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2003;30:1561–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  103. Pirotte B, Levivier M, Morelli D, et al. Positron emission tomography for the early postsurgical evaluation of pediatric brain tumors. Childs Nerv Syst. 2005;21:294–300.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  104. Pirotte B, Goldman S, Van Bogaert P, et al. Integration of [11C]methionine-positron emission tomographic and magnetic resonance imaging for image-guided surgical resection of infiltrative low-grade brain tumors in children. Neurosurgery. 2005;57:128–39. discussion 128–139

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  105. Pirotte B, Goldman S, Dewitte O, et al. Integrated positron emission tomography and magnetic resonance imaging-guided resection of brain tumors: a report of 103 consecutive procedures. J Neurosurg. 2006;104:238–53.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  106. Misch M, Guggemos A, Driever PH, et al. 18F-FET-PET guided surgical biopsy and resection in children and adolescence with brain tumors. Childs Nerv Syst. 2015;31:261–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  107. Preuss M, Werner P, Barthel H, et al. Integrated PET/MRI for planning navigated biopsies in pediatric brain tumors. Childs Nerv Syst. 2014;30:1399–403.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  108. Gauvain K, Ponisio MR, Barone A, et al. 18F-FDOPA PET/MRI for monitoring early response to bevacizumab in children with recurrent brain tumors: initial experience Neuro-Oncology Pract. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1093/nop/npx008.

  109. Bakhshi S, Radhakrishnan V. Prognostic markers in osteosarcoma. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2010;10:271–87.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  110. Crist WM, Anderson JR, Meza JL, et al. Intergroup rhabdomyosarcoma study-IV: results for patients with nonmetastatic disease. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19:3091–102.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  111. Gorlick R, Janeway K, Lessnick S, Randall RL, Marina N, Committee COGBT. Children’s oncology group’s 2013 blueprint for research: bone tumors. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2013;60:1009–15.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  112. Bacci G, Ferrari S, Bertoni F, et al. Prognostic factors in nonmetastatic Ewing's sarcoma of bone treated with adjuvant chemotherapy: analysis of 359 patients at the Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli. J Clin Oncol. 2000;18:4–11.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  113. Sung L, Anderson JR, Donaldson SS, et al. Late events occurring five years or more after successful therapy for childhood rhabdomyosarcoma: a report from the soft tissue sarcoma committee of the Children’s oncology group. Eur J Cancer. 2004;40:1878–85.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  114. Rodeberg DA, Garcia-Henriquez N, Lyden ER, et al. Prognostic significance and tumor biology of regional lymph node disease in patients with rhabdomyosarcoma: a report from the Children’s oncology group. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:1304–11.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  115. van Geel AN, Wyrdeman HK, Seynaeve C, et al. Practice guideline ‘Diagnostic techniques for soft tissue tumours and treatment of soft tissue sarcomas (revision)’. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2005;149:924–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  116. Brisse H, Ollivier L, Edeline V, et al. Imaging of malignant tumours of the long bones in children: monitoring response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy and preoperative assessment. Pediatr Radiol. 2004;34:595–605.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  117. Pan G, Raymond AK, Carrasco CH, et al. Osteosarcoma: MR imaging after preoperative chemotherapy. Radiology. 1990;174:517–26.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  118. Marina N, Gebhardt M, Teot L, Gorlick R. Biology and therapeutic advances for pediatric osteosarcoma. Oncologist. 2004;9:422–41.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  119. Kellenberger CJ, Miller SF, Khan M, Gilday DL, Weitzman S, Babyn PS. Initial experience with FSE STIR whole-body MR imaging for staging lymphoma in children. Eur Radiol. 2004;14:1829–41.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  120. Daldrup-Link HE, Franzius C, Link TM, et al. Whole-body MR imaging for detection of bone metastases in children and young adults: comparison with skeletal scintigraphy and FDG PET. Am J Roentgenol. 2001;177:229–36.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  121. Weiser DA, Kaste SC, Siegel MJ, Adamson PC. Imaging in childhood cancer: a Society for Pediatric Radiology and Children’s oncology group joint task force report. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2013;60:1253–60.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  122. Kneisl JS, Patt JC, Johnson JC, Zuger JH. Is PET useful in detecting occult nonpulmonary metastases in pediatric bone sarcomas? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;450:101–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  123. Ricard F, Cimarelli S, Deshayes E, Mognetti T, Thiesse P, Giammarile F. Additional benefit of F-18 FDG PET/CT in the staging and follow-up of pediatric rhabdomyosarcoma. Clin Nucl Med. 2011;36:672–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  124. Buchbender C, Heusner TA, Lauenstein TC, Bockisch A, Antoch G. Oncologic PET/MRI, part 2: bone tumors, soft-tissue tumors, melanoma, and lymphoma. J Nucl Med. 2012;53:1244–52.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  125. London K, Stege C, Cross S, et al. 18F-FDG PET/CT compared to conventional imaging modalities in pediatric primary bone tumors. Pediatr Radiol. 2012;42:418–30.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  126. Quartuccio N, Fox J, Kuk D, et al. Pediatric bone sarcoma: diagnostic performance of 18F-FDG PET/CT versus conventional imaging for initial staging and follow-up. Am J Roentgenol. 2015;204:153–60.

    Google Scholar 

  127. Denecke T, Hundsdorfer P, Misch D, et al. Assessment of histological response of paediatric bone sarcomas using FDG PET in comparison to morphological volume measurement and standardized MRI parameters. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010;37:1842–53.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  128. Franzius C, Bielack S, Flege S, Sciuk J, Jurgens H, Schober O. Prognostic significance of 18F-FDG and 99mTc-methylene diphosphonate uptake in primary osteosarcoma. J Nucl Med. 2002;43:1012–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  129. Pfluger T, Melzer HI, Mueller WP, et al. Diagnostic value of combined 18F-FDG PET/MRI for staging and restaging in paediatric oncology. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012;39:1745–55.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  130. Parodi S, Haupt R. The epidemiology of neuroblastoma. New York: Nova Biomedical; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  131. Gutierrez JC, Fischer AC, Sola JE, Perez EA, Koniaris LG. Markedly improving survival of neuroblastoma: a 30-year analysis of 1,646 patients. Pediatr Surg Int. 2007;23:637–46.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  132. Matthay KK, Maris JM, Schleiermacher G, et al. Neuroblastoma. Nat Rev Dis Prim. 2016;2:16078.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  133. Maris JM, Hogarty MD, Bagatell R, Cohn SL. Neuroblastoma. Lancet. 2007;369:2106–20.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  134. Servaes S, Epelman M, Pollock A, Shekdar K. Pediatric malignancies: synopsis of current imaging techniques. Cancer Treat Res. 2008;143:469–91.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  135. Sharp SE, Parisi MT, Gelfand MJ, Yanik GA, Shulkin BL. Functional-metabolic imaging of neuroblastoma. Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;57:6–20.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  136. Conte M, De Bernardi B, Milanaccio C, et al. Malignant neuroblastic tumors in adolescents. Cancer Lett. 2005;228:271–4.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  137. Modak S, Cheung NK. Neuroblastoma: therapeutic strategies for a clinical enigma. Cancer Treat Rev. 2010;36:307–17.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  138. Goo HW. Whole-body MRI of neuroblastoma. Eur J Radiol. 2010;75:306–14.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  139. Goo HW, Choi SH, Ghim T, Moon HN, Seo JJ. Whole-body MRI of paediatric malignant tumours: comparison with conventional oncological imaging methods. Pediatr Radiol. 2005;35:766–73.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  140. Mueller WP, Coppenrath E, Pfluger T. Nuclear medicine and multimodality imaging of pediatric neuroblastoma. Pediatr Radiol. 2013;43:418–27.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  141. Lopci E, Piccardo A, Nanni C, et al. 18F-DOPA PET/CT in neuroblastoma: comparison of conventional imaging with CT/MR. Clin Nucl Med. 2012;37:e73–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  142. Piccardo A, Lopci E, Conte M, et al. Comparison of 18F-dopa PET/CT and 123I-MIBG scintigraphy in stage 3 and 4 neuroblastoma: a pilot study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012;39:57–71.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  143. Ambrosini V, Morigi JJ, Nanni C, Castellucci P, Fanti S. Current status of PET imaging of neuroendocrine tumours ([18F]FDOPA, [68Ga]tracers, [11C]/[18F]-HTP). Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015;59:58–69.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  144. Brodeur GM, Pritchard J, Berthold F, et al. Revisions of the international criteria for neuroblastoma diagnosis, staging, and response to treatment. J Clin Oncol. 1993;11:1466–77.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  145. Kushner BH. Neuroblastoma: a disease requiring a multitude of imaging studies. J Nucl Med. 2004;45:1172–88.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  146. Taggart DR, Han MM, Quach A, et al. Comparison of iodine-123 metaiodobenzylguanidine (MIBG) scan and [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography to evaluate response after iodine-131 MIBG therapy for relapsed neuroblastoma. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:5343–9.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  147. Sharp SE, Shulkin BL, Gelfand MJ, Salisbury S, Furman WL. 123I-MIBG scintigraphy and 18F-FDG PET in neuroblastoma. J Nucl Med. 2009;50:1237–43.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  148. Stauss J, Franzius C, Pfluger T, et al. Guidelines for 18F-FDG PET and PET-CT imaging in paediatric oncology. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2008;35:1581–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  149. Uslu L, Donig J, Link M, Rosenberg J, Quon A, Daldrup-Link HE. Value of 18F-FDG PET and PET/CT for evaluation of pediatric malignancies. J Nucl Med. 2015;56:274–86.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  150. Shulkin BL, Hutchinson RJ, Castle VP, Yanik GA, Shapiro B, Sisson JC. Neuroblastoma: positron emission tomography with 2-[fluorine-18]-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose compared with metaiodobenzylguanidine scintigraphy. Radiology. 1996;199:743–50.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  151. Georgantzi K, Tsolakis AV, Stridsberg M, Jakobson A, Christofferson R, Janson ET. Differentiated expression of somatostatin receptor subtypes in experimental models and clinical neuroblastoma. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2011;56:584–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  152. Maggi M, Baldi E, Finetti G, et al. Identification, characterization, and biological activity of somatostatin receptors in human neuroblastoma cell lines. Cancer Res. 1994;54:124–33.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  153. Kong G, Hofman MS, Murray WK, et al. Initial experience with Gallium-68 DOTA-octreotate PET/CT and peptide receptor radionuclide therapy for pediatric patients with refractory metastatic neuroblastoma. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol. 2016;38:87–96.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  154. Gains JE, Bomanji JB, Fersht NL, et al. 177Lu-DOTATATE molecular radiotherapy for childhood neuroblastoma. J Nucl Med. 2011;52:1041–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  155. Lu MY, Liu YL, Chang HH, et al. Characterization of neuroblastic tumors using 18F-FDOPA PET. J Nucl Med. 2013;54:42–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA

    Maria Rosana Ponisio, Pooya Iranpour & Geetika Khanna

  2. Division of Molecular Imaging and Therapeutics, Department of Radiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA

    Jonathan McConathy

Authors
  1. Maria Rosana Ponisio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Pooya Iranpour
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Geetika Khanna
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jonathan McConathy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jonathan McConathy .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA

    Andrei Iagaru

  2. Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA

    Thomas Hope

  3. Dept. of Nuclear Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland

    Patrick Veit-Haibach

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Ponisio, M.R., Iranpour, P., Khanna, G., McConathy, J. (2018). PET/MRI for Clinical Pediatric Oncologic Imaging. In: Iagaru, A., Hope, T., Veit-Haibach, P. (eds) PET/MRI in Oncology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68517-5_21

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68517-5_21

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-68516-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-68517-5

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation