Hybrid FDG-PET/MR compared to FDG-PET/CT in adult lymphoma patients

Wendy Atkinson; Ciprian Catana; Jeremy S. Abramson; Grae Arabasz; Shanaugh McDermott; Onofrio Catalano; Victorine Muse; Michael A. Blake; Jeffrey Barnes; Martin Shelly; Ephraim Hochberg; Bruce R. Rosen; Alexander R. Guimaraes

doi:10.1007/s00261-016-0638-6

Hybrid FDG-PET/MR compared to FDG-PET/CT in adult lymphoma patients

Wendy Atkinson, Ciprian Catana, Jeremy S. Abramson, Grae Arabasz, Shanaugh McDermott, Onofrio Catalano, Victorine Muse, Michael A. Blake, Jeffrey Barnes, Martin Shelly, Ephraim Hochberg, Bruce R. Rosen, Alexander R. Guimaraes

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

51 Scopus citations

Abstract

Purpose: The goal of this study is to evaluate the diagnostic performance of simultaneous FDG-PET/MR including diffusion compared to FDG-PET/CT in patients with lymphoma. Methods: Eighteen patients with a confirmed diagnosis of non-Hodgkin’s (NHL) or Hodgkin’s lymphoma (HL) underwent an IRB-approved, single-injection/dual-imaging protocol consisting of a clinical FDG-PET/CT and subsequent FDG-PET/MR scan. PET images from both modalities were reconstructed iteratively. Attenuation correction was performed using low-dose CT data for PET/CT and Dixon-MR sequences for PET/MR. Diffusion-weighted imaging was performed. SUV_max was measured and compared between modalities and the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) using ROI analysis by an experienced radiologist using OsiriX. Strength of correlation between variables was measured using the Pearson correlation coefficient (r_p). Results: Of the 18 patients included in this study, 5 had HL and 13 had NHL. The median age was 51 ± 14.8 years. Sixty-five FDG-avid lesions were identified. All FDG-avid lesions were visible with comparable contrast, and therefore initial and follow-up staging was identical between both examinations. SUV_max from FDG-PET/MR [(mean ± sem) (21.3 ± 2.07)] vs. FDG-PET/CT (mean 23.2 ± 2.8) demonstrated a strongly positive correlation [r_s = 0.95 (0.94, 0.99); p < 0.0001]. There was no correlation found between ADC_min and SUV_max from FDG-PET/MR [r = 0.17(−0.07, 0.66); p = 0.09]. Conclusion: FDG-PET/MR offers an equivalent whole-body staging examination as compared with PET/CT with an improved radiation safety profile in lymphoma patients. Correlation of ADC to SUV_max was weak, understating their lack of equivalence, but not undermining their potential synergy and differing importance.

Original language	English (US)
Pages (from-to)	1338-1348
Number of pages	11
Journal	Abdominal Radiology
Volume	41
Issue number	7
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-016-0638-6
State	Published - Jul 1 2016

Keywords

Diffusion-weighted imaging
FDG
Lymphoma
PET/MRI
SUV

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Radiological and Ultrasound Technology
Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
Gastroenterology
Urology

Access to Document

10.1007/s00261-016-0638-6

Cite this

@article{69f9dd1c662449208b7543f8ea80b217,

title = "Hybrid FDG-PET/MR compared to FDG-PET/CT in adult lymphoma patients",

abstract = "Purpose: The goal of this study is to evaluate the diagnostic performance of simultaneous FDG-PET/MR including diffusion compared to FDG-PET/CT in patients with lymphoma. Methods: Eighteen patients with a confirmed diagnosis of non-Hodgkin{\textquoteright}s (NHL) or Hodgkin{\textquoteright}s lymphoma (HL) underwent an IRB-approved, single-injection/dual-imaging protocol consisting of a clinical FDG-PET/CT and subsequent FDG-PET/MR scan. PET images from both modalities were reconstructed iteratively. Attenuation correction was performed using low-dose CT data for PET/CT and Dixon-MR sequences for PET/MR. Diffusion-weighted imaging was performed. SUVmax was measured and compared between modalities and the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) using ROI analysis by an experienced radiologist using OsiriX. Strength of correlation between variables was measured using the Pearson correlation coefficient (rp). Results: Of the 18 patients included in this study, 5 had HL and 13 had NHL. The median age was 51 ± 14.8 years. Sixty-five FDG-avid lesions were identified. All FDG-avid lesions were visible with comparable contrast, and therefore initial and follow-up staging was identical between both examinations. SUVmax from FDG-PET/MR [(mean ± sem) (21.3 ± 2.07)] vs. FDG-PET/CT (mean 23.2 ± 2.8) demonstrated a strongly positive correlation [rs = 0.95 (0.94, 0.99); p < 0.0001]. There was no correlation found between ADCmin and SUVmax from FDG-PET/MR [r = 0.17(−0.07, 0.66); p = 0.09]. Conclusion: FDG-PET/MR offers an equivalent whole-body staging examination as compared with PET/CT with an improved radiation safety profile in lymphoma patients. Correlation of ADC to SUVmax was weak, understating their lack of equivalence, but not undermining their potential synergy and differing importance.",

keywords = "Diffusion-weighted imaging, FDG, Lymphoma, PET/MRI, SUV",

author = "Wendy Atkinson and Ciprian Catana and Abramson, {Jeremy S.} and Grae Arabasz and Shanaugh McDermott and Onofrio Catalano and Victorine Muse and Blake, {Michael A.} and Jeffrey Barnes and Martin Shelly and Ephraim Hochberg and Rosen, {Bruce R.} and Guimaraes, {Alexander R.}",

note = "Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2016, Springer Science+Business Media New York.",

year = "2016",

month = jul,

day = "1",

doi = "10.1007/s00261-016-0638-6",

language = "English (US)",

volume = "41",

pages = "1338--1348",

journal = "Abdominal Radiology",

issn = "2366-004X",

publisher = "Springer New York",

number = "7",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Hybrid FDG-PET/MR compared to FDG-PET/CT in adult lymphoma patients

AU - Atkinson, Wendy

AU - Catana, Ciprian

AU - Abramson, Jeremy S.

AU - Arabasz, Grae

AU - McDermott, Shanaugh

AU - Catalano, Onofrio

AU - Muse, Victorine

AU - Blake, Michael A.

AU - Barnes, Jeffrey

AU - Shelly, Martin

AU - Hochberg, Ephraim

AU - Rosen, Bruce R.

AU - Guimaraes, Alexander R.

PY - 2016/7/1

Y1 - 2016/7/1

N2 - Purpose: The goal of this study is to evaluate the diagnostic performance of simultaneous FDG-PET/MR including diffusion compared to FDG-PET/CT in patients with lymphoma. Methods: Eighteen patients with a confirmed diagnosis of non-Hodgkin’s (NHL) or Hodgkin’s lymphoma (HL) underwent an IRB-approved, single-injection/dual-imaging protocol consisting of a clinical FDG-PET/CT and subsequent FDG-PET/MR scan. PET images from both modalities were reconstructed iteratively. Attenuation correction was performed using low-dose CT data for PET/CT and Dixon-MR sequences for PET/MR. Diffusion-weighted imaging was performed. SUVmax was measured and compared between modalities and the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) using ROI analysis by an experienced radiologist using OsiriX. Strength of correlation between variables was measured using the Pearson correlation coefficient (rp). Results: Of the 18 patients included in this study, 5 had HL and 13 had NHL. The median age was 51 ± 14.8 years. Sixty-five FDG-avid lesions were identified. All FDG-avid lesions were visible with comparable contrast, and therefore initial and follow-up staging was identical between both examinations. SUVmax from FDG-PET/MR [(mean ± sem) (21.3 ± 2.07)] vs. FDG-PET/CT (mean 23.2 ± 2.8) demonstrated a strongly positive correlation [rs = 0.95 (0.94, 0.99); p < 0.0001]. There was no correlation found between ADCmin and SUVmax from FDG-PET/MR [r = 0.17(−0.07, 0.66); p = 0.09]. Conclusion: FDG-PET/MR offers an equivalent whole-body staging examination as compared with PET/CT with an improved radiation safety profile in lymphoma patients. Correlation of ADC to SUVmax was weak, understating their lack of equivalence, but not undermining their potential synergy and differing importance.

AB - Purpose: The goal of this study is to evaluate the diagnostic performance of simultaneous FDG-PET/MR including diffusion compared to FDG-PET/CT in patients with lymphoma. Methods: Eighteen patients with a confirmed diagnosis of non-Hodgkin’s (NHL) or Hodgkin’s lymphoma (HL) underwent an IRB-approved, single-injection/dual-imaging protocol consisting of a clinical FDG-PET/CT and subsequent FDG-PET/MR scan. PET images from both modalities were reconstructed iteratively. Attenuation correction was performed using low-dose CT data for PET/CT and Dixon-MR sequences for PET/MR. Diffusion-weighted imaging was performed. SUVmax was measured and compared between modalities and the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) using ROI analysis by an experienced radiologist using OsiriX. Strength of correlation between variables was measured using the Pearson correlation coefficient (rp). Results: Of the 18 patients included in this study, 5 had HL and 13 had NHL. The median age was 51 ± 14.8 years. Sixty-five FDG-avid lesions were identified. All FDG-avid lesions were visible with comparable contrast, and therefore initial and follow-up staging was identical between both examinations. SUVmax from FDG-PET/MR [(mean ± sem) (21.3 ± 2.07)] vs. FDG-PET/CT (mean 23.2 ± 2.8) demonstrated a strongly positive correlation [rs = 0.95 (0.94, 0.99); p < 0.0001]. There was no correlation found between ADCmin and SUVmax from FDG-PET/MR [r = 0.17(−0.07, 0.66); p = 0.09]. Conclusion: FDG-PET/MR offers an equivalent whole-body staging examination as compared with PET/CT with an improved radiation safety profile in lymphoma patients. Correlation of ADC to SUVmax was weak, understating their lack of equivalence, but not undermining their potential synergy and differing importance.

KW - Diffusion-weighted imaging

KW - FDG

KW - Lymphoma

KW - PET/MRI

KW - SUV

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84975770290&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84975770290&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s00261-016-0638-6

DO - 10.1007/s00261-016-0638-6

M3 - Article

C2 - 27315095

AN - SCOPUS:84975770290

SN - 2366-004X

VL - 41

SP - 1338

EP - 1348

JO - Abdominal Radiology

JF - Abdominal Radiology

IS - 7

ER -

Hybrid FDG-PET/MR compared to FDG-PET/CT in adult lymphoma patients

Abstract

Keywords

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this