Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • JNM Supplement
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Institutional and Non-member
    • Rates
    • Corporate & Special Sales
    • Journal Claims
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNM
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA requirements
  • Info
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
    • Continuing Education
  • 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
  • My Cart

Search

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

Advanced Search

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

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • FIGURE 1.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIGURE 1.

    In 65-y-old woman with lung cancer, 38-mm tumor (arrows) is seen in right upper lobe of lung on CT component (A) of PET/CT (C) and on MRI component (D) of PET/MRI (F). SUVmax of strong 18F-FDG uptake on PET component is 17.3 for PET/CT (B) and 19.4 for PET/MRI (E).

  • FIGURE 2.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIGURE 2.

    In 46-y-old woman with breast cancer, 4-mm nodule (arrows) is seen in lingula segment of left upper lobe of lung on CT component (A) of PET/CT (B) but not on MRI component (C) of PET/MRI (D). No 18F-FDG uptake is seen on PET component of either PET/CT (C) or PET/MRI (D).

  • FIGURE 3.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIGURE 3.

    (A) For each of 161 lung lesions, difference between size on MRI component of PET/MRI and size on CT component of PET/CT is plotted against mean size, which was −0.61 mm (95% confidence interval, 1.83 and −3.04 mm). (B) Linear regression plot demonstrates correlation between size on MRI and size on CT (r = 0.98; P < 0.001). T1w fs = T1-weighted fat saturation.

  • FIGURE 4.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIGURE 4.

    (A) For each of 161 lung lesions, difference in SUVmax (A) and SUVmean (B) between PET component of PET/MRI and PET component of PET/CT is plotted against mean difference, which was 1.32 for SUVmax (95% confidence interval, 4.21 and −1.56) and 0.43 for SUVmean (95% confidence interval, 2.82 and −1.95).

Tables

  • Figures
    • View popup
    TABLE 1

    Tumor Types in Study Cohort

    Typen
    Lung cancer28
    Lymphoma21
    Breast cancer18
    Uterine cancer12
    Ovarian cancer10
    Cancer of unknown primary8
    Malignant melanoma4
    Head and neck cancer4
    Gastrointestinal cancer3
    Malignant mesothelioma3
    Other (<3 cases/type)10
    • View popup
    TABLE 2

    Lung Lesion Characterization on PET/CT and PET/MRI

    Lesions detected (n)
    ModalityTotalMost likely benignIndeterminateSuggestive of malignancy
    PET/CT241110 (46%)31 (13%)100 (41%)
    PET/MRI16141 (25%)14 (9%)106 (66%)
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

  • Diagnostic Performance of 124I-Metaiodobenzylguanidine PET/CT in Patients with Pheochromocytoma
  • Effects of Tracer Uptake Time in Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer 18F-FDG PET Radiomics
  • Clinical Evaluation of Zero-Echo-Time Attenuation Correction for Brain 18F-FDG PET/MRI: Comparison with Atlas Attenuation Correction
Show more CLINICAL INVESTIGATIONS

Similar Articles

Keywords

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

© 2023 Journal of Nuclear Medicine

Powered by HighWire