nach oben

Erschienen in:

14.05.2016 | Chest

Thoracic staging with ¹⁸F-FDG PET/MR in non-small cell lung cancer – does it change therapeutic decisions in comparison to ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT?

verfasst von: Benedikt M. Schaarschmidt, Johannes Grueneisen, Martin Metzenmacher, Benedikt Gomez, Thomas Gauler, Christian Roesel, Philipp Heusch, Verena Ruhlmann, Lale Umutlu, Gerald Antoch, Christian Buchbender

Erschienen in: European Radiology | Ausgabe 2/2017

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Objective

To investigate whether differences in thoracic tumour staging between ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT and PET/MR imaging lead to different therapeutic decisions in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC).

Material and methods

Seventy-seven NSCLC patients that underwent whole-body ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT from the base of skull to the upper thighs and thoracic PET/MR were enrolled in this retrospective study. Thoracic PET/CT and PET/MR images were staged according to the 7th edition of the AJCC staging manual. Staging results of both modalities were discussed separately in a simulated interdisciplinary tumour board and therapeutic decisions based on both imaging modalities were recorded. Descriptive statistics were used to compare the results and reasons for changes in the therapeutic decision were investigated.

Results

Staging results differed in 35 % of patients (27 patients) between thoracic PET/CT and PET/MR. Differences were detected when assessing the T-stage in 18 % (n = 14), the N-stage in 23 % (n = 18), and the M-stage in 1 % (n = 1). However, patient therapy management was changed in only six patients (8 %).

Conclusion

Despite the variability of thoracic ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT and PET/MR in TNM-staging, both modalities lead to comparable therapeutic decisions in patients suffering from NSCLC. Hence, ¹⁸F-FDG PET/MR can be considered an possible alternative to ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT for clinical NSCLC staging.

Key points

• PET/CT and PET/MR provide comparable results in early stages in NSCLC

• Clinical impact of different staging results has not been investigated

• PET/CT and PET/MR lead to comparable therapeutic decisions

• PET/MR can be considered an alternative to PET/CT for NSCLC staging

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Goeckenjan G, Sitter H, Thomas M et al (2010) Prevention, diagnosis, therapy, and follow-up of lung cancer. Pneumologie 65:39–59CrossRefPubMed

National Collaborating Centre for Cancer (UK) (2011) The diagnosis and treatment of lung cancer (Update). National Collaborating Centre for Cancer (UK), Cardiff

Reck M, Popat S, Reinmuth N et al (2014) Metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC): ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 25:27–39CrossRef

Pieterman RM, van Putten JWG, Meuzelaar JJ et al (2000) Preoperative staging of non–small-cell lung cancer with positron-emission tomography. N Engl J Med 343:254–261CrossRefPubMed

van Tinteren H, Hoekstra OS, Smit EF et al (2002) Effectiveness of positron emission tomography in the preoperative assessment of patients with suspected non-small-cell lung cancer: the PLUS multicentre randomised trial. Lancet 359:1388–1392CrossRefPubMed

Bunyaviroch T, Coleman RE (2006) PET evaluation of lung cancer. J Nucl Med 47:451–469PubMed

Antoch G, Stattaus J, Nemat AT et al (2003) Non–small cell lung cancer: dual-modality PET/CT in preoperative staging. Radiology 229:526–533CrossRefPubMed

Schwenzer NF, Schraml C, Müller M et al (2012) Pulmonary lesion assessment: comparison of whole-body hybrid MR/PET and PET/CT imaging—pilot study. Radiology 264:551–558CrossRefPubMed

Heusch P, Buchbender C, Köhler J et al (2014) Thoracic staging in lung cancer: prospective comparison of 18F-FDG PET/MR imaging and 18F-FDG PET/CT. J Nucl Med 55:373–378CrossRefPubMed

10.

Landwehr P, Schulte O, Lackner K (1999) MR imaging of the chest: mediastinum and chest wall. Eur Radiol 9:1737–1744CrossRefPubMed

11.

Beiderwellen K, Gomez B, Buchbender C et al (2013) Depiction and characterization of liver lesions in whole body [18F]-FDG PET/MRI. Eur J Radiol 82:669–675CrossRef

12.

Beiderwellen K, Huebner M, Heusch P et al (2014) Whole-body [18F]FDG PET/MRI vs. PET/CT in the assessment of bone lesions in oncological patients: initial results. Eur Radiol 24:2023–2030CrossRefPubMed

13.

Gatidis S, Schmidt H, Claussen CD, Schwenzer NF (2013) Multiparametrische Bildgebung mittels simultaner MR/PET. Radiol 53:669–675

14.

Schmidt H, Brendle C, Schraml C et al (2013) 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. Investig Radiol 48:247–255CrossRef

15.

Sawicki LM, Grueneisen J, Buchbender C et al (2016) 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 57:15–20CrossRefPubMed

16.

Sawicki LM, Grueneisen J, Buchbender C et al (2016) Comparative performance of 18F-FDG PET/MRI and 18F-FDG PET/CT regarding detection and characterization of pulmonary lesions in 121 oncologic patients. J Nucl Med, Online first publication jnumed.115.167486. doi:10.2967/jnumed.115.167486

17.

Schaarschmidt B, Buchbender C, Gomez B et al (2015) Thoracic staging of non-small-cell lung cancer using integrated 18F-FDG PET/MR imaging: diagnostic value of different MR sequences. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 42:1257–1267CrossRefPubMed

18.

Edge S, Byrd DR, Compton CC et al (2010) AJCC cancer staging manual, 7th edn. Springer

19.

Webb WR, Gatsonis C, Zerhouni EA et al (1991) CT and MR imaging in staging non-small cell bronchogenic carcinoma: report of the Radiologic Diagnostic Oncology Group. Radiology 178:705–713CrossRefPubMed

20.

Manfredi R, Pirronti T, Bonomo L, Marano P (1996) Accuracy of computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in staging bronchogenic carcinoma. Magma 4:257–262CrossRefPubMed

21.

Yi CA, Lee KS, Lee HY et al (2013) Coregistered whole body magnetic resonance imaging-positron emission tomography (MRI-PET) versus PET-computed tomography plus brain MRI in staging resectable lung cancer. Cancer 119:1784–1791CrossRefPubMed

22.

Fraioli F, Screaton NJ, Janes SM et al (2014) Non-small-cell lung cancer resectability: diagnostic value of PET/MR. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 42:49–55CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

23.

Ohno Y, Koyama H, Yoshikawa T et al (2015) Three-way comparison of whole-body MR, coregistered whole-body FDG PET/MR, and integrated whole-body FDG PET/CT imaging: TNM and stage assessment capability for non–small cell lung cancer patients. Radiology 275:849–861CrossRefPubMed

24.

Stolzmann P, Veit-Haibach P, Chuck N et al (2013) Detection rate, location, and size of pulmonary nodules in trimodality PET/CT-MR: comparison of low-dose CT and Dixon-based MR imaging. Investig Radiol 48:241–246CrossRef

25.

Giedl J, Hohenberger W, Meister R (1983) The pTNM classification of carcinomas of the lung, and its prognostic significance*. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 31:71–75CrossRefPubMed

26.

Biederer J, Schoene A, Freitag S et al (2003) Simulated pulmonary nodules implanted in a dedicated porcine chest phantom: sensitivity of MR imaging for detection. Radiology 227:475–483CrossRefPubMed

27.

Quick HH (2014) Integrated PET/MR. J Magn Reson Imaging 39:243–258CrossRefPubMed

28.

Hartung-Knemeyer V, Beiderwellen KJ, Buchbender C et al (2013) Optimizing positron emission tomography image acquisition protocols in integrated positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance imaging. Investig Radiol 48:290–294CrossRef

29.

Lan X-L, Zhang Y-X, Wu Z-J et al (2008) The value of dual time point 18F-FDG PET imaging for the differentiation between malignant and benign lesions. Clin Radiol 63:756–764CrossRefPubMed

30.

Nishiyama Y, Yamamoto Y, Kimura N et al (2008) Dual-time-point FDG-PET for evaluation of lymph node metastasis in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer. Ann Nucl Med 22:245–250CrossRefPubMed

31.

Hahn S, Hecktor J, Grabellus F et al (2012) Diagnostic accuracy of dual-time-point 18F-FDG PET/CT for the detection of axillary lymph node metastases in breast cancer patients. Acta Radiol 53:518–523CrossRefPubMed

32.

Kim D-W, Kim WH, Kim CG (2012) Dual-time-point FDG PET/CT: is it useful for lymph node staging in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer? Nucl Med Mol Imaging 46:196–200CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

33.

Shen G, Deng H, Hu S, Jia Z (2014) Potential performance of dual-time-point 18F-FDG PET/CT compared with single-time-point imaging for differential diagnosis of metastatic lymph nodes: a meta-analysis. Nucl Med Commun 35:1003–1010CrossRefPubMed

34.

Coolen J, De Keyzer F, Nafteux P et al (2014) Malignant pleural mesothelioma: visual assessment by using pleural pointillism at diffusion-weighted MR imaging. Radiology 274:576–584CrossRefPubMed

35.

Chandarana H, Heacock L, Rakheja R et al (2013) Pulmonary nodules in patients with primary malignancy: comparison of hybrid PET/MR and PET/CT imaging. Radiology 268:874–881CrossRefPubMed

36.

Raad RA, Friedman KP, Heacock L et al (2015) Outcome of small lung nodules missed on hybrid PET/MRI in patients with primary malignancy. J Magn Reson Imaging 43:504–511CrossRefPubMed

Titel: Thoracic staging with 18F-FDG PET/MR in non-small cell lung cancer – does it change therapeutic decisions in comparison to 18F-FDG PET/CT?
verfasst von: Benedikt M. Schaarschmidt
Johannes Grueneisen
Martin Metzenmacher
Benedikt Gomez
Thomas Gauler
Christian Roesel
Philipp Heusch
Verena Ruhlmann
Lale Umutlu
Gerald Antoch
Christian Buchbender
Publikationsdatum: 14.05.2016
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in: European Radiology / Ausgabe 2/2017
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-016-4397-0

Update Radiologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Springer Medizin

Thoracic staging with ¹⁸F-FDG PET/MR in non-small cell lung cancer – does it change therapeutic decisions in comparison to ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT?