Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Dusseldorf, Medical Faculty, Dusseldorf, Germany
Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology and Neuroradiology, University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany.
J Nucl Med. 2020 Aug;61(8):1131-1136. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.119.233940. Epub 2019 Dec 5.
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. 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 ( < 0.001, indicating statistical significance). Additional information on PET/MRI was reported for 26.3% (264/1,003) of examinations, compared with PET/CT ( < 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% ( < 0.001). 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.
我们的目的是研究 PET/MRI 和 PET/CT 在肿瘤全身检查中的病灶检测和分类差异,并研究两种方法的辐射暴露差异。在这项观察性单中心研究中,纳入了 1003 例肿瘤检查(918 例患者;平均年龄 57.8 ± 14.4 岁)。患者在示踪剂给药后 149.8 ± 49.7 分钟接受了 PET/CT 和随后的 PET/MRI。检查由放射科医生和核医学医生共同审查。研究了额外的发现、PET/CT 上不确定发现的特征以及 PET/MRI 上的遗漏发现,包括它们的临床相关性和两种方式的有效剂量。采用 McNemar 检验比较两种混合成像方式的病灶检出率(<0.001,表明具有统计学意义)。与 PET/CT 相比,报告了 26.3%(264/1003)检查的 PET/MRI 额外信息(<0.001)。其中,5.3%(53/1003)发现了额外的恶性发现,导致 2.9%(29/1003)因 PET/MRI 而改变 TNM 分期。11.1%(111/1003)的 PET/CT 不确定发现可通过 PET/MRI 进行明确的病灶分类。2.9%(29/1003)的病变在 PET/MRI 上不可见。1.2%(12/1003)的 PET/MRI 上恶性病变漏诊,导致 0.5%(5/1003)的 TNM 分期改变。全身 PET/CT 的估计平均有效剂量为 17.6 ± 8.7 mSv,而 PET/MRI 为 3.6 ± 1.4 mSv,因此潜在的剂量减少了 79.6%(<0.001)。PET/MRI 有助于分期,与 PET/CT 相当,并提高了选定癌症的病灶检出率,当建议进行额外的 MRI 时,可能有助于快速、高效地进行局部和全身分期。此外,年轻患者可能受益于 PET/MRI 辐射暴露的减少。