Protocol requirements and diagnostic value of PET/MR imaging for liver metastasis detection |
| |
Authors: | Caecilia S Reiner Paul Stolzmann Lars Husmann Irene A Burger Martin W Hüllner Niklaus G Schaefer Paul M Schneider Gustav K von Schulthess Patrick Veit-Haibach |
| |
Institution: | 1. Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland 2. Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland 5. Division of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Zurich, Raemistrasse 100, 8091, Zurich, Switzerland 3. Oncology, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland 4. Visceral and Transplant Surgery, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
|
| |
Abstract: | Purpose To compare the accuracy of PET/MR imaging with that of FDG PET/CT and to determine the MR sequences necessary for the detection of liver metastasis using a trimodality PET/CT/MR set-up. Methods Included in this single-centre IRB-approved study were 55 patients (22 women, age 61?±?11 years) with suspected liver metastases from gastrointestinal cancer. Imaging using a trimodality PET/CT/MR set-up (time-of-flight PET/CT and 3-T whole-body MR imager) comprised PET, low-dose CT, contrast-enhanced (CE) CT of the abdomen, and MR with T1-W/T2-W, diffusion-weighted (DWI), and dynamic CE imaging. Two readers evaluated the following image sets for liver metastasis: PET/CT (set A), PET/CECT (B), PET/MR including T1-W/T2-W (C), T1-W/T2-W with either DWI (D) or CE imaging (E), and a combination (F). The accuracy of each image set was determined by receiver-operating characteristic analysis using image set B as the standard of reference. Results Of 120 liver lesions in 21/55 patients (38 %), 79 (66 %) were considered malignant, and 63/79 (80 %) showed abnormal FDG uptake. Accuracies were 0.937 (95 % CI 89.5 – 97.9 %) for image set A, 1.00 (95 % CI 99.9 – 100.0 %) for set C, 0.998 (95 % CI 99.4 – 100.0 %) for set D, 0.997 (95 % CI 99.3 – 100.0 %) for set E, and 0.995 (95 % CI 99.0 – 100.0 %) for set F. Differences were significant for image sets D – F (P?<?0.05) when including lesions without abnormal FDG uptake. As shown by follow-up imaging after 50 – 177 days, the use of image sets D and both sets E and F led to the detection of metastases in one and three patients, respectively, and further metastases in the contralateral lobe in two patients negative on PET/CECT (P?=?0.06). Conclusion PET/MR imaging with T1-W/T2-W sequences results in similar diagnostic accuracy for the detection of liver metastases to PET/CECT. To significantly improve the characterization of liver lesions, we recommend the use of dynamic CE imaging sequences. PET/MR imaging has a diagnostic impact on clinical decision making. |
| |
Keywords: | |
本文献已被 SpringerLink 等数据库收录! |
|