nach oben

European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging

Erschienen in:

01.01.2013 | Original Article

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

verfasst von: Marco Wiesmüller, Harald H. Quick, Bharath Navalpakkam, Michael M. Lell, Michael Uder, Philipp Ritt, Daniela Schmidt, Michael Beck, Torsten Kuwert, Carl C. von Gall

Erschienen in: European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging | Ausgabe 1/2013

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose

PET/MR hybrid scanners have recently been introduced, but not yet validated. The aim of this study was to compare the PET components of a PET/CT hybrid system and of a simultaneous whole-body PET/MR hybrid system with regard to reproducibility of lesion detection and quantitation of tracer uptake.

Methods

A total of 46 patients underwent a whole-body PET/CT scan 1 h after injection and an average of 88 min later a second scan using a hybrid PET/MR system. The radioactive tracers used were ¹⁸F-deoxyglucose (FDG), ¹⁸F-ethylcholine (FEC) and ⁶⁸Ga-DOTATATE (Ga-DOTATATE). The PET images from PET/CT (PET_CT) and from PET/MR (PET_MR) were analysed for tracer-positive lesions. Regional tracer uptake in these foci was quantified using volumes of interest, and maximal and average standardized uptake values (SUV_max and SUV_avg, respectively) were calculated.

Results

Of the 46 patients, 43 were eligible for comparison and statistical analysis. All lesions except one identified by PET_CT were identified by PET_MR (99.2 %). In 38 patients (88.4 %), the same number of foci were identified by PET_CT and by PET_MR. In four patients, more lesions were identified by PET_MR than by PET_CT, in one patient PET_CT revealed an additional focus compared to PET_MR. The mean SUV_max and SUV_avg of all lesions determined by PET_MR were by 21 % and 11 % lower, respectively, than the values determined by PET_CT (p < 0.05), and a strong correlation between these variables was identified (Spearman rho 0.835; p < 0.01).

Conclusion

PET/MR showed equivalent performance in terms of qualitative lesion detection to PET/CT. The differences demonstrated in quantitation of tracer uptake between PET_CT and PET_MR were minor, but statistically significant. Nevertheless, a more detailed study of the quantitative accuracy of PET_MR and the factors governing it is needed to ultimately assess its accuracy in measuring tissue tracer concentrations.

Cuocolo A, Breatnach E. Multimodality imaging in Europe: a survey by the European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM) and the European Society of Radiology (ESR). Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010;37(1):163–7.PubMedCrossRef

Rosenbaum J, Basu S, Beckerman S, Werner T, Torigian DA, Alavi A. Evaluation of diagnostic performance of (18)F-FDG-PET compared to CT in detecting potential causes of fever of unknown origin in an academic centre. Hell J Nucl Med. 2011;14(3):255–9.PubMed

Schiepers C, Dahlbom M. Molecular imaging in oncology: the acceptance of PET/CT and the emergence of MR/PET imaging. Eur Radiol. 2011;21(3):548–54.PubMedCrossRef

Blodgett TM, Meltzer CC, Townsend DW. PET/CT: form and function. Radiology. 2007;242(2):360–85.PubMedCrossRef

Freudenberg LS, Rosenbaum SJ, Beyer T, Bockisch A, Antoch G. PET versus PET/CT dual-modality imaging in evaluation of lung cancer. Thorac Surg Clin. 2010;20(1):25–30.PubMedCrossRef

Ell PJ. The contribution of PET/CT to improved patient management. Br J Radiol. 2006;79(937):32–6.PubMedCrossRef

Rosenbaum SJ, Lind T, Antoch G, Bockisch A. False-positive FDG PET uptake – the role of PET/CT. Eur Radiol. 2006;16(5):1054–65.PubMedCrossRef

Bockisch A, Freudenberg LS, Schmidt D, Kuwert T. Hybrid imaging by SPECT/CT and PET/CT: proven outcomes in cancer imaging. Semin Nucl Med. 2009;39(4):276–89.PubMedCrossRef

Chawla SC, Federman N, Zhang D, Nagata K, Nuthakki S, McNitt-Gray M, et al. Estimated cumulative radiation dose from PET/CT in children with malignancies: a 5-year retrospective review. Pediatr Radiol. 2010;40(5):681–6.PubMedCrossRef

10.

Mattsson S, Söderberg M. Radiation dose management in CT, SPECT/CT and PET/CT techniques. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2011;147(1–2):13–21.PubMedCrossRef

11.

Judenhofer MS, Wehrl HF, Newport DF, Catana C, Siegel SB, Becker M, et al. Simultaneous PET-MRI: a new approach for functional and morphological imaging. Nat Med. 2008;14(4):459–65.PubMedCrossRef

12.

Pichler BJ, Judenhofer MS, Catana C, Walton JH, Kneilling M, Nutt RE, et al. Performance test of an LSO-APD detector in a 7-T MRI scanner for simultaneous PET/MRI. J Nucl Med. 2006;47(4):639–47.PubMed

13.

Hofmann M, Pichler B, Schölkopf B, Beyer T. Towards quantitative PET/MRI: a review of MR-based attenuation correction techniques. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2009;36 Suppl 1:S93–104.PubMedCrossRef

14.

Judenhofer MS, Catana C, Swann BK, Siegel SB, Jung W-I, Nutt RE, et al. PET/MR images acquired with a compact MR-compatible PET detector in a 7-T magnet. Radiology. 2007;244(3):807–14.PubMedCrossRef

15.

Catana C, Procissi D, Wu Y, Judenhofer MS, Qi J, Pichler BJ, et al. Simultaneous in vivo positron emission tomography and magnetic resonance imaging. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008;105(10):3705–10.PubMedCrossRef

16.

Wehrl HF, Judenhofer MS, Wiehr S, Pichler BJ. Pre-clinical PET/MR: technological advances and new perspectives in biomedical research. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2009;36 Suppl 1:S56–68.PubMedCrossRef

17.

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(8):1198–205.PubMedCrossRef

18.

Boss A, Stegger L, Bisdas S, Kolb A, Schwenzer N, Pfister M, et al. Feasibility of simultaneous PET/MR imaging in the head and upper neck area. Eur Radiol. 2011;21(7):1439–46.PubMedCrossRef

19.

Schlemmer H-PW, Pichler BJ, Schmand M, Burbar Z, Michel C, Ladebeck R, et al. Simultaneous MR/PET imaging of the human brain: feasibility study. Radiology. 2008;248(3):1028–35.PubMedCrossRef

20.

Delso G, Fürst 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(12):1914–22.PubMedCrossRef

21.

Zaidi H, Ojha N, Morich M, Griesmer J, Hu Z, Maniawski P, et al. Design and performance evaluation of a whole-body Ingenuity TF PET-MRI system. Phys Med Biol. 2011;56(10):3091–106.PubMedCrossRef

22.

Kumar S, Pandey AK, Sharma P, Malhotra A, Kumar R. Optimization of the CT acquisition protocol to reduce patient dose without compromising the diagnostic quality for PET-CT: a phantom study. Nucl Med Commun. 2012;33(2):164–70.PubMedCrossRef

23.

Funama Y, Awai K, Nakayama Y, Kakei K, Nagasue N, Shimamura M, et al. Radiation dose reduction without degradation of low-contrast detectability at abdominal multisection CT with a low-tube voltage technique: phantom study. Radiology. 2005;237(3):905–10.PubMedCrossRef

24.

Martinez-Möller A, Souvatzoglou M, Delso G, Bundschuh RA, Chefd’hotel C, Ziegler SI, et al. Tissue classification as a potential approach for attenuation correction in whole-body PET/MRI: evaluation with PET/CT data. J Nucl Med. 2009;50(4):520–6.PubMedCrossRef

25.

Eiber M, Martinez-Möller 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(9):1691–701.PubMedCrossRef

26.

Hofmann M, Bezrukov I, Mantlik F, Aschoff P, Steinke F, Beyer T, et al. MRI-based attenuation correction for whole-body PET/MRI: quantitative evaluation of segmentation-and atlas-based methods. J Nucl Med. 2011;52(9):1392–9.PubMedCrossRef

27.

Matthies A, Hickeson M, Cuchiara A, Alavi A. Dual time point 18F-FDG PET for the evaluation of pulmonary nodules. J Nucl Med. 2002;43(7):871–5.PubMed

28.

Basu S, Kwee TC, Surti S, Akin EA, Yoo D, Alavi A. Fundamentals of PET and PET/CT imaging. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2011;1228:1–18.PubMedCrossRef

29.

Zytoon AA, Murakami K, El-Kholy MR, El-Shorbagy E. Dual time point FDG-PET/CT imaging. Potential tool for diagnosis of breast cancer. Clin Radiol. 2008;63(11):1213–27.PubMedCrossRef

30.

Paquet N, Albert A, Foidart J, Hustinx R. Within-patient variability of (18)F-FDG: standardized uptake values in normal tissues. J Nucl Med. 2004;45(5):784–8.PubMed

31.

Lee JW, Kim S-K, Lee SM, Moon SH, Kim T-S. Detection of hepatic metastases using dual-time-point FDG PET/CT scans in patients with colorectal cancer. Mol Imaging Biol. 2011;13(3):565–72.PubMedCrossRef

32.

Drzezga A, Souvatzoglou M, Eiber M, Beer AJ, Furst 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(6):845–55.PubMedCrossRef

33.

Boellaard R, O’Doherty MJ, Weber WA, Mottaghy FM, Lonsdale MN, Stroobants SG. FDG PET and PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour PET imaging: Version 1.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010;37(1):181–200.PubMedCrossRef

34.

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(9):1412–7.PubMed

35.

Schwenzer NF, Schraml C, Müller M, Brendle C, Sauter A, Spengler W, et al. Pulmonary lesion assessment: comparison of whole-body hybrid MR/PET and PET/CT imaging – pilot study. Radiology. 2012;264(2):551–8.PubMedCrossRef

36.

Mantlik F, Hofmann M, Werner MK, Sauter A, Kupferschläger J, Schölkopf B, et al. The effect of patient positioning aids on PET quantification in PET/MR imaging. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;38(5):920–9.PubMedCrossRef

37.

Vriens D, Visser EP, Geus-Oei L-F, Oyen WJG. Methodological considerations in quantification of oncological FDG PET studies. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2009;37(7):1408–25.PubMedCrossRef

38.

Tellmann L, Quick HH, Bockisch A, Herzog H, Beyer T. The effect of MR surface coils on PET quantification in whole-body PET/MR: results from a pseudo-PET/MR phantom study. Med Phys. 2011;38(5):2795–805.PubMedCrossRef

39.

Delso G, Martinez-Möller A, Bundschuh RA, Ladebeck R, Candidus Y, Faul D, et al. Evaluation of the attenuation properties of MR equipment for its use in a whole-body PET/MR scanner. Phys Med Biol. 2010;55(15):4361–74.PubMedCrossRef

40.

MacDonald LR, Kohlmyer S, Liu C, Lewellen TK, Kinahan PE. Effects of MR surface coils on PET quantification. Med Phys. 2011;38(6):2948–56.PubMedCrossRef

Titel: 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
verfasst von: Marco Wiesmüller
Harald H. Quick
Bharath Navalpakkam
Michael M. Lell
Michael Uder
Philipp Ritt
Daniela Schmidt
Michael Beck
Torsten Kuwert
Carl C. von Gall
Publikationsdatum: 01.01.2013
Verlag: Springer-Verlag
Erschienen in: European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging / Ausgabe 1/2013
Print ISSN: 1619-7070
Elektronische ISSN: 1619-7089
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-012-2249-y

Live-Webinar "Urologie und Sexualmedizin in der Praxis"

Springer Medizin

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

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Live-Webinar "Urologie und Sexualmedizin in der Praxis"

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2013

EJNMMI: the European way of communicating science

Defining the role for dosimetry and radiobiology in combination therapies

Effects of type 2 diabetes mellitus on coronary microvascular function and myocardial perfusion in patients without obstructive coronary artery disease: reply to Presotto

Quantifying tumour heterogeneity in 18F-FDG PET/CT imaging by texture analysis

Discrimination and anatomical mapping of PET-positive lesions: comparison of CT attenuation-corrected PET images with coregistered MR and CT images in the abdomen

Response assessment of bevacizumab in patients with recurrent malignant glioma using [18F]Fluoroethyl-l-tyrosine PET in comparison to MRI