Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Functional Imaging in Oncology pp 411–430Cite as

Hybrid Imaging: PET-CT and PET-MRI

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 1748 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter provides a brief introduction to the PET technology focusing on the evolution from stand-alone PET to PET-CT and the continuous improvement of the PET-CT technology during the last 10 years. The clinical significance of the development of hybrid PET-CT scanners is described together with illustrative examples of the importance of fused functional and anatomical imaging. Despite its widespread use and impact in many oncological settings, PET-CT has some limitations: i.e., radiation dose, limited soft tissue contrast, and the sequential acquiring of PET and CT data. In an attempt to solve these issues, the hybrid PET-MRI scanner was introduced, after approximately 20 years of research. The technical development of the PET-MRI scanner is briefly discussed in this chapter, together with an introduction to the three different PET-MRI systems currently available.

The PET-MR technology was launched without any obvious “killer-indication,” apart from perhaps brain imaging. The published literature on clinical use of PET-MRI will be presented, and trends for the future development and perspectives on the use of both PET-CT and PET-MR in multifunctional oncology imaging will be discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, 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   119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   219.99
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

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Abbreviations

ADC:

Apparent diffusion coefficient

APDs:

Avalanche photodiodes

ASL:

Arterial spin labeling

BGO:

Bismuth germinate

BOLD-MRI:

Blood oxygen level-dependent MR imaging

Cu-ATSM:

64Cu-diacetyl-bis (N4-methylthiosemicarbazone)

DCE:

Dynamic contrast enhancement

DOI:

Depth-of-interaction

DWI:

Diffusion weighted imaging

FDG:

Fluorodeoxyglucose

FET:

Fluoroethyl-tyrosine

F-FAZA:

18F-fluoroazomycin arabinoside

FLT:

Fluorothymidine

F-MISO:

18F-fluoromisonidazole

fMRI:

Functional MRI

GSO:

Gadolinium oxyorthosilicate

keV:

Kilo electron Volt

kV:

Kilo Volt

LBS:

Lutetium-based scintillator

LSO:

Lutetium oxyorthosilicate

LYSO:

Cerium-doped lutetium-yttrium oxyorthosilicate

mA:

Milliampere

MET:

Methionine

MRS:

MR spectroscopy

mSv:

Millisievert

NaI(Tl):

thallium-doped sodium iodide

PERCIST:

PET response criteria in solid tumors

PET-CT:

Positron emission tomography – computed tomography

PET-MRI:

Positron emission tomography – magnetic resonance imaging

PM:

photomultiplier tubes

ps:

Picoseconds

PSF:

Point spread function

RECIST:

Response evaluation criteria in solid tumors

RF:

Radio frequency

SiPMs:

Silicon photomultipliers

SNR:

Signal-to-noise

SUV:

Standardized uptake value

T:

Tesla

TOF:

Time-of-flight

γPET:

Gamma camera PET

μ-map:

Attenuation map

References

  1. Huebner J. A possible declinig trend for worldwide innovation. Tech Forecasting Soc Change. 2005;72:980–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Cherry SR, Phelps ME. Positron emission tomography: methods and instrumentation. In: Sandler MP et al., editors. Diagnostic nuclear medicine, vol. 1. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins; 1995. p. 139–59.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Ak I, et al. The clinical value of 18F-FDG detection with a dual-head coincidence camera: a review. Eur J Nucl Med. 2001;28:763–78.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Beyer T, et al. A combined PET/CT scanner for clinical oncology. J Nucl Med. 2000;41:1369–79.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. von Schulthess GK. Cost considerations regarding an integrated CT-PET system. Eur Radiol. 2000;10:S377–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Balyasnikova S, et al. PET/MR in oncology: an introduction with focus on MR and future perspectives for hybrid imaging. Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012;2:458–74.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Sauter AW, et al. Combined PET/MRI: one step further in multimodality imaging. Trends Mol Med. 2010;16:508–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Sweet WH, Brownell GL. Localization of brain tumors with positron emitters. Nucleonics. 1953;11:40–5.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Brownell GL, Burnham CA. MGH positron camera. NEREM 1972. Record. 1972;2:117.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Burnham CA, Brownell GL. A multi-crystal positron camera. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 1972;19:201–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Ido T, et al. Labeled 2-deoxy-D-glucse analogs. -labeled 2-deoxy-2-fluoro-D-glucose, 2-deoxy-2-fluoro-D-mannose and C-14-2-deoxy-2-fluoro-D-glucose. J Label Compd Radiopharm. 1978;14:175–82.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Shepp LA, Vardi Y. Maximum likelihood reconstruction for emission tomography. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 1982;MI-1:113–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Hudson HM, Larkin RS. Accelerated image reconstruction using ordered subsets of projection data. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 1994;13:601–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Ziessman HA, et al. Nuclear medicine: the requisites. 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Shreve P, Townsend DW. Clinical PET-CT in radiology: integrated imaging in oncology. New York: Springer; 2011.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  16. Renker D. Geiger-mode avalanche photodiodes, history, properties and problems. Nucl Instrum Meth. 2006;A567:48–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Renker D. New trends on photodetectors. Nucl Instrum Meth. 2007;A571:1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Lecomte R. Novel detector technology for clinical PET. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2009;36:s69–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Ho Shon I, et al. Positron emission tomography in lung cancer. Semin Nucl Med. 2002;XXXII:240–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Antoch G, et al. Accuracy of whole-body dual-modality fluorine-18-2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography and computed tomography (FDG-PET/CT) for tumor staging in solid tumors: comparison with CT and PET. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:4357–68.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Bar-Shalom R, et al. Clinical performance of PET/CT in evaluation of cancer: additional value for diagnostic imaging and patient management. J Nucl Med. 2003;44:1200–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Cohade C, et al. Uptake in supraclavicular area fat (“USA-fat”): description on 18F-FDG PET/CT. J Nucl Med. 2003;44:170–6.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Bar-Shalom R, et al. The additional value of PET/CT over PET in FDG-imaging of oesophageal cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2005;32:918–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Delbeke D, Martin WH. PET and PET-CT for evaluation of colorectal carcinoma. Semin Nucl Med. 2004;XXXIV:209–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Kim JH, et al. Comparison between 18F-FDG PET, in-line PET/CT, and software fusion for restaging of recurrent colorectal cancer. J Nucl Med. 2005;46:587–95.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Maas M, et al. What is the most accurate whole-body imaging modality for assessment of local and distant recurrent disease in colorectal cancer? A meta-analysis. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;38:1560–71.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Kitajima K, et al. Performance of integrated FDG-PET/contrast-enhanced CT in the diagnosis of recurrent uterine cancer: comparison with PET and enhanced CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2009;36:362–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Cerfolio RJ, et al. The accuracy of integrated PET-CT compared with dedicated PEt alone for the staging of patients with nonsmall cell lung cancer. Ann Thorac Surg. 2004;78:1017–23.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Lardinois D, et al. Staging of non-small-cell lung cancer with integrated positron-emission-tomography and computed tomography. N Engl J Med. 2003;348:2500–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Reinhardt M, et al. Diagnostic performance of whole body dual modality 18F-FDG PET/CT for imaging N- and M-staging of malignant melanoma: experience with 250 consecutive patients. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:1178–87.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Pearce MS, et al. Radiation exposure from CT scans in childhood and subsequent risk of leukaemia and brain tumours: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet. 2012;380:499–505.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Zhang D, et al. Estimated cumulative effective dose from PET/CT in pediatric patients with malignancies. Med Phys. 2008;35:2958.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Boss A, et al. Feasibility of simultaneous PET/MR imaging in the head and upper neck area. Eur Radiol. 2011;21:1439–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Mawlawi O, Townsend DW. Multimodality imaging: an update on PET/CT technology. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2009;36:S15–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Veit-Haibach P, et al. PET-MR imaging using a tri-modality PET/CT-MR system with a dedicated shuttle in clinical routine. Magn Reson Mater Phys. 2013;26:25–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Gagnon D, et al. Hybrid PET-MRI imaging systems. US Patent Application 20080312526; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Shao Y, et al. Simultaneous PET and MR imaging. Phys Med Biol. 1997;42:1965–70.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Schlemmer H, et al. Simultaneous MR/PET imaging of the human brain. Radiology. 2008;248:1028–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Keller SH, et al. Image artifacts from MR-based attenuation correction in clinical, whole-body PET/MRI. Magn Reson Mater Phys. 2013;26:173–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Chandarana H, 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 

  41. Kjær A, et al. PET/MRI in cancer patients: first experiences and visions from Copenhagen. MAGMA. 2013;26:37–47.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Platzek I, et al. PET/MR for therapy response evaluation in malignant lymphoma: initial experience. MAGMA. 2013;26:49–55.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Platzek I, et al. PET/MRI in head and neck cancer: initial experience. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;40:6–11.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Schwenzer NF, et al. Pulmonary lesion assessment: comparison of whole-body hybrid MR/PET and PET/CT imaging – pilot study. Radiology. 2012;264:551–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Wiesmüller M, et al. Comparison of lesion detection and quantitation of tracer uptake between PET from a simultaneously acquiring whole-body PET/MR hybrid scanner and PET from PET/CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;40:12–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Jadvar H, Colletti PM. Competitive advantage of PET/MRI. Eur J Radiol. 2013 [Epub ahead of print].

    Google Scholar 

  47. Schmidt H, et al. Correlation of simultaneously acquired diffusion-weighted imaging and 2-deoxy-[18F]fluoro-2-D-glucose positron emission tomography of pulmonary lesions in a dedicated whole-body magnetic resonance/positron emission tomography system. Invest Radiol. 2013;48:247–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Neuner I, et al. Multimodality imaging utilising MR-PET for human brain tumour assessment. Eur Radiol. 2012;22:2568–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Hochhegger B, et al. MRI in lung cancer: a pictoral essay. Br J Radiol. 2011;84:661–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Jansen JFA, et al. Tumor metabolism and perfusion in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: pretreatment multimodality imaging with 1H magnetic resonance spectroscopy, dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI and [18F]FDG-PET. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012;82:299–307.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Ohno Y, et al. N stage disease in patients with non-small cell lung cancer: efficacy of quantitative and qualitative assessment with STIR Turbo Spin-Echo Imaging, diffusion-weighted MR imaging and fluorodeoxyglucose PET/CT. Radiology. 2012;261:605–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Buchbender C, et al. Diffusion-weighted imaging as part of hybrid PET/MRI protocols for whole-body cancer staging: does it benefit lesion detection? Eur J Radiol. 2013;82:877–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Atherly AJ, Camidge DR. The cost-effectiveness of screening lung cancer patients for targeted drug sensitivity markers. Br J Cancer. 2012;106:1100–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Sequist LV, et al. Implementing multiplexed genotyping of non-small-cell lung cancers into routine clinical practice. Ann Oncol. 2011;22:2616–24.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Gerlinger M, et al. Intratumor heterogeneity and branched evolution revealed by multiregion sequencing. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:883–92.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Nehmeh SA, et al. Reproducibility of intratumor distribution of 18F-fluoromisonidazole in head and neck cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008;70:235–42.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Padhani AR, et al. Imaging oxygenation of human tumours. Eur Radiol. 2007;17:861–72.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. Dirix P, et al. Dose painting in radiotherapy for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: value of repeated functional imaging with 18F-FDG PET, 18F-Fluoromisonidazole PET, diffusion-weighted MRI, and dynam contrast-enhanced MRI. J Nucl Med. 2009;50:1020–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Therasse P, et al. New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000;92:205–16.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Jaffe CC. Measurements of response: RECIST, WHO and new alternatives. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:3245–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Strumberg D. Preclinical and clinical development of the oral multikinase inhibitor sorafenib in cancer treatment. Drugs Today. 2005;41:773.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Weber WA. Use of PET for monitoring cancer therapy and for predicting outcome. J Nucl Med. 2005;46:983–95.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Wahl RL, et al. From RECIST to PERCIST: evolving considerations for PET response criteria in solid tumors. J Nucl Med. 2009;50:122S–50.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  64. Hutchings M, et al. FDG-PET after two cycles of chemotherapy predicts treatment failure and progression-free survival in Hodgkin Lymphoma. Blood. 2006;107:52–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. Galbán CJ, et al. Evaluation of treatment-associated inflammatory response on diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging and 2-[18F]-fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose-positron emission tomography imaging biomarkers. Clin Cancer Res. 2010;16:1542–52.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  66. Galbán S, et al. Diffusion-weighted MRI for assessment of early cancer treatment response. Curr Pharm Biotechnol. 2010;11:701–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Heijmen L, et al. Tumour response prediction by diffusion-weighted MR-imaging: ready for clinical use? Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2012;83:194–207.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Koh DM, Collins DJ. Diffusion-weighted MRI in the body: applications and challenges in oncology. Am J Roentgenol. 2007;188:1622–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Boss A, 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 

  70. Sauter AW, et al. Letter to the editor re: molecular imaging in oncology: the acceptance of PET/CT and the emergence of MR/PET imaging. Eur Radiol. 2011;5:1–4.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Schiepers C, Dahlbom M. Molecular imaging in oncology: the acceptance of PET/CT and the emergence of MR/PET imaging. Eur Radiol. 2011;21:548–54.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  72. Werner MK, et al. Respiratory gating enhances imaging of pulmonary nodules and measurement of tracer uptake in FDG PET/CT. Am J Roentgenol. 2009;193:1640–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Aznar M, et al. Feasibility of breathing-adapted PET/CT imaging for radiation therapy of Hodgkin lymphoma. Cancer Imaging. 2011;Spec No A:S117. Ref Type: Abstract.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Nehmeh S, Erdi YE. Respiratory motion in positron emission tomography/computed tomography: a review. Semin Nucl Med. 2008;38:167–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Olesen OV, et al. Motion tracking for medical imaging: a non-visible structured light tracking approach. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2012;31:79–87.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Dikaios N, et al. MRI-based motion correction of thoracic PET: initial comparison of acquisition protocols and correction strategies suitable for simultaneous PET/MRI systems. Eur Radiol. 2012;22:439–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Ouyang J, et al. Magnetic resonance-based motion correction for positron emission tomography imaging. Semin Nucl Med. 2013;43:60–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Würslin C, et al. Respiratory motion correction in oncologic PET using T1-weighted MR imaging on a simultaneous whole-body PET/MR system. J Nucl Med. 2013;54:464–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Clinical Physiology, Nuclear Medicine and PET, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark

    Barbara Malene Fischer MD & Johan Löfgren

Authors
  1. Barbara Malene Fischer MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Johan Löfgren
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Barbara Malene Fischer MD .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Health Time Group, Jaén, Spain

    Antonio Luna

  2. Dept. of MRI, Clínica Girona, Girona, Spain

    Joan C. Vilanova

  3. Botafogo - Rio de Janeiro/RJ, Brazil

    L. Celso Hygino da Cruz Jr.

  4. Centro de Diagnóstico Dr. Enrique Rossi, Buenos Aires, Argentina

    Santiago E. Rossi

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Fischer, B.M., Löfgren, J. (2014). Hybrid Imaging: PET-CT and PET-MRI. In: Luna, A., Vilanova, J., Hygino da Cruz Jr., L., Rossi, S. (eds) Functional Imaging in Oncology. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40412-2_19

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40412-2_19

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-40411-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-40412-2

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation