Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • JNM Supplement
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
    • Continuing Education
    • JNM Podcasts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Institutional and Non-member
    • Rates
    • Journal Claims
    • Corporate & Special Sales
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNM
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA requirements
  • Info
    • Reviewers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact Information
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • SNMMI
    • JNM
    • JNMT
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • Log out
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
  • SNMMI
    • JNM
    • JNMT
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • Log out
  • My Cart
Journal of Nuclear Medicine

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • JNM Supplement
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
    • Continuing Education
    • JNM Podcasts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Institutional and Non-member
    • Rates
    • Journal Claims
    • Corporate & Special Sales
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNM
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA requirements
  • Info
    • Reviewers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact Information
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • View or Listen to JNM Podcast
  • Visit JNM on Facebook
  • Join JNM on LinkedIn
  • Follow JNM on Twitter
  • Subscribe to our RSS feeds
Research ArticleClinical Investigations

Comparative Performance of 18F-FDG PET/MRI and 18F-FDG PET/CT in Detection and Characterization of Pulmonary Lesions in 121 Oncologic Patients

Lino M. Sawicki, Johannes Grueneisen, Christian Buchbender, Benedikt M. Schaarschmidt, Benedikt Gomez, Verena Ruhlmann, Axel Wetter, Lale Umutlu, Gerald Antoch and Philipp Heusch
Journal of Nuclear Medicine April 2016, 57 (4) 582-586; DOI: https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.115.167486
Lino M. Sawicki
1Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Dusseldorf, Dusseldorf, Germany
2Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology and Neuroradiology, University Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany; and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Johannes Grueneisen
2Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology and Neuroradiology, University Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany; and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Christian Buchbender
1Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Dusseldorf, Dusseldorf, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Benedikt M. Schaarschmidt
1Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Dusseldorf, Dusseldorf, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Benedikt Gomez
3Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Verena Ruhlmann
3Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Axel Wetter
2Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology and Neuroradiology, University Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany; and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Lale Umutlu
2Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology and Neuroradiology, University Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany; and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Gerald Antoch
1Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Dusseldorf, Dusseldorf, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Philipp Heusch
1Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Dusseldorf, Dusseldorf, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Our objective was to compare 18F-FDG PET/MRI (performed using a contrast-enhanced T1-weighted fat-suppressed volume-interpolated breath-hold examination [VIBE]) with 18F-FDG PET/CT for detecting and characterizing lung lesions in oncologic patients. Methods: In 121 oncologic patients with 241 lung lesions, PET/MRI was performed after PET/CT in a single-injection protocol (260 ± 58 MBq of 18F-FDG). The detection rates were computed for MRI, the PET component of PET/CT, and the PET component of PET/MRI in relation to the CT component of PET/CT. Wilcoxon testing was used to assess differences in lesion contrast (4-point scale) and size between morphologic datasets and differences in image quality (4-point scale), SUVmean, SUVmax, and characterization (benign/malignant) between PET/MRI and PET/CT. Correlation was determined using the Pearson coefficient (r) for SUV and size and the Spearman rank coefficient (ρ) for contrast. Results: The detection rates for MRI, the PET component of PET/CT, and the PET component of PET/MRI were 66.8%, 42.7%, and 42.3%, respectively. There was a strong correlation in size (r = 0.98) and SUV (r = 0.91) and a moderate correlation in contrast (ρ = 0.48). Image quality was better for PET/CT than for PET/MRI (P < 0.001). Lesion measurements were smaller for MRI than for CT (P < 0.001). SUVmax and SUVmean were significantly higher for PET/MRI than for PET/CT (P < 0.001 each). There was no significant difference in lesion contrast (P = 0.11) or characterization (P = 0.076). Conclusion: In the detection and characterization of lung lesions 10 mm or larger, 18F-FDG PET/MRI and 18F-FDG PET/CT perform comparably. Lesion size, SUV and characterization correlate strongly between the two modalities. However, the overall detection rate of PET/MRI remains inferior to that of PET/CT because of the limited ability of MRI to detect lesions smaller than 10 mm. Thus, thoracic staging with PET/MRI bears a risk of missing small lung metastases.

  • lung
  • lesion
  • MRI
  • PET/MRI
  • PET/CT

Footnotes

  • Published online Jan. 7, 2016.

  • © 2016 by the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Inc.
View Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of Nuclear Medicine: 57 (4)
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
Vol. 57, Issue 4
April 1, 2016
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Comparative Performance of 18F-FDG PET/MRI and 18F-FDG PET/CT in Detection and Characterization of Pulmonary Lesions in 121 Oncologic Patients
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Journal of Nuclear Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Journal of Nuclear Medicine web site.
Citation Tools
Comparative Performance of 18F-FDG PET/MRI and 18F-FDG PET/CT in Detection and Characterization of Pulmonary Lesions in 121 Oncologic Patients
Lino M. Sawicki, Johannes Grueneisen, Christian Buchbender, Benedikt M. Schaarschmidt, Benedikt Gomez, Verena Ruhlmann, Axel Wetter, Lale Umutlu, Gerald Antoch, Philipp Heusch
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Apr 2016, 57 (4) 582-586; DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.115.167486

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Comparative Performance of 18F-FDG PET/MRI and 18F-FDG PET/CT in Detection and Characterization of Pulmonary Lesions in 121 Oncologic Patients
Lino M. Sawicki, Johannes Grueneisen, Christian Buchbender, Benedikt M. Schaarschmidt, Benedikt Gomez, Verena Ruhlmann, Axel Wetter, Lale Umutlu, Gerald Antoch, Philipp Heusch
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Apr 2016, 57 (4) 582-586; DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.115.167486
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • MATERIALS AND METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • CONCLUSION
    • DISCLOSURE
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • This Month in JNM
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • PET/MRI Versus PET/CT for Whole-Body Staging: Results from a Single-Center Observational Study on 1,003 Sequential Examinations
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Feasibility of Ultra-Low-Activity 18F-FDG PET/CT Imaging Using a Long–Axial-Field-of-View PET/CT System
  • Cardiac Presynaptic Sympathetic Nervous Function Evaluated by Cardiac PET in Patients with Chronotropic Incompetence Without Heart Failure
  • Validation and Evaluation of a Vendor-Provided Head Motion Correction Algorithm on the uMI Panorama PET/CT System
Show more Clinical Investigations

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • lung
  • lesion
  • MRI
  • PET/MRI
  • PET/CT
SNMMI

© 2025 SNMMI

Powered by HighWire