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 ArticleOncology

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

Ole Martin, Benedikt M. Schaarschmidt, Julian Kirchner, Saravanabavaan Suntharalingam, Johannes Grueneisen, Aydin Demircioglu, Philipp Heusch, Harald H. Quick, Michael Forsting, Gerald Antoch, Ken Herrmann and Lale Umutlu
Journal of Nuclear Medicine August 2020, 61 (8) 1131-1136; DOI: https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.119.233940
Ole Martin
1Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Dusseldorf, Medical Faculty, Dusseldorf, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Benedikt M. Schaarschmidt
2Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology and Neuroradiology, University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Julian Kirchner
1Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Dusseldorf, Medical Faculty, Dusseldorf, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Saravanabavaan Suntharalingam
2Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology and Neuroradiology, University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany
  • 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 Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Aydin Demircioglu
2Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology and Neuroradiology, University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, 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, Medical Faculty, Dusseldorf, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Harald H. Quick
3Erwin L. Hahn Institute for Magnetic Resonance Imaging, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany
4High-Field and Hybrid MR Imaging, University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany; and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Michael Forsting
2Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology and Neuroradiology, University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany
  • 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, Medical Faculty, Dusseldorf, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ken Herrmann
5Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany
  • 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 Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, 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 purpose was to investigate differences between PET/MRI and PET/CT in lesion detection and classification in oncologic whole-body examinations and to investigate radiation exposure differences between the 2 modalities. Methods: In this observational single-center study, 1,003 oncologic examinations (918 patients; mean age, 57.8 ± 14.4 y) were included. Patients underwent PET/CT and subsequent PET/MRI (149.8 ± 49.7 min after tracer administration). Examinations were reviewed by radiologists and nuclear medicine physicians in consensus. Additional findings, characterization of indeterminate findings on PET/CT, and missed findings on PET/MRI, including their clinical relevance and effective dose of both modalities, were investigated. The McNemar test was used to compare lesion detection between the 2 hybrid imaging modalities (P < 0.001, indicating statistical significance). Results: Additional information on PET/MRI was reported for 26.3% (264/1,003) of examinations, compared with PET/CT (P < 0.001). Of these, additional malignant findings were detected in 5.3% (53/1,003), leading to a change in TNM staging in 2.9% (29/1,003) due to PET/MRI. Definite lesion classification of indeterminate PET/CT findings was possible in 11.1% (111/1,003) with PET/MRI. In 2.9% (29/1,003), lesions detected on PET/CT were not visible on PET/MRI. Malignant lesions were missed in 1.2% (12/1,003) on PET/MRI, leading to a change in TNM staging in 0.5% (5/1,003). The estimated mean effective dose for whole-body PET/CT amounted to 17.6 ± 8.7 mSv, in comparison to 3.6 ± 1.4 mSv for PET/MRI, resulting in a potential dose reduction of 79.6% (P < 0.001). Conclusion: PET/MRI facilitates staging comparable to that of PET/CT and improves lesion detectability in selected cancers, potentially helping to promote fast, efficient local and whole-body staging in 1 step, when additional MRI is recommended. Furthermore, younger patients may benefit from the reduced radiation exposure of PET/MRI.

  • simultaneous PET/MRI
  • oncologic imaging
  • lesion detection
  • PET/CT

Footnotes

  • ↵* Contributed equally to this work.

  • Published online Dec. 5, 2019.

  • © 2020 by the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.
View Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of Nuclear Medicine: 61 (8)
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
Vol. 61, Issue 8
August 1, 2020
  • 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.
PET/MRI Versus PET/CT for Whole-Body Staging: Results from a Single-Center Observational Study on 1,003 Sequential Examinations
(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
PET/MRI Versus PET/CT for Whole-Body Staging: Results from a Single-Center Observational Study on 1,003 Sequential Examinations
Ole Martin, Benedikt M. Schaarschmidt, Julian Kirchner, Saravanabavaan Suntharalingam, Johannes Grueneisen, Aydin Demircioglu, Philipp Heusch, Harald H. Quick, Michael Forsting, Gerald Antoch, Ken Herrmann, Lale Umutlu
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Aug 2020, 61 (8) 1131-1136; DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.119.233940

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
PET/MRI Versus PET/CT for Whole-Body Staging: Results from a Single-Center Observational Study on 1,003 Sequential Examinations
Ole Martin, Benedikt M. Schaarschmidt, Julian Kirchner, Saravanabavaan Suntharalingam, Johannes Grueneisen, Aydin Demircioglu, Philipp Heusch, Harald H. Quick, Michael Forsting, Gerald Antoch, Ken Herrmann, Lale Umutlu
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Aug 2020, 61 (8) 1131-1136; DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.119.233940
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
  • The Evolution of PET/MR Is Hindered by Our Fields Reluctance to Provide Critical Evaluation
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

Oncology

  • 18F-FDG PET/CT manifestations of three Cases of Female Desmoplastic Small Round Cell Tumor
  • Utility of Fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose PET/CT in Uterine sarcoma patients.
  • 18F-FDG PET/CT imaging features of parotid lesions; Case based pictorial review and its multi-modality correlation.
Show more Oncology

Clinical

  • TauIQ: A Canonical Image Based Algorithm to Quantify Tau PET Scans
  • Dual PET Imaging in Bronchial Neuroendocrine Neoplasms: The NETPET Score as a Prognostic Biomarker
  • Addition of 131I-MIBG to PRRT (90Y-DOTATOC) for Personalized Treatment of Selected Patients with Neuroendocrine Tumors
Show more Clinical

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • simultaneous PET/MRI
  • oncologic imaging
  • Lesion detection
  • PET/CT
SNMMI

© 2023 Journal of Nuclear Medicine

Powered by HighWire