Patrick Veit-Haibach

Contrast-Enhanced 18F-FDG PET/CT: 1-Stop-Shop Imaging for Assessing the Resectability of Pancreatic Cancer

Patients with pancreatic cancer continue to have a poor prognosis, with a 5-y survival rate of less than 5%. Surgery is the only treatment that offers a potential cure. Determining resectability is the principal goal of staging in pancreatic cancer patients. Our objective was to evaluate the value of combined contrast-enhanced 18F-FDG PET/CT in assessing the resectability of pancreatic cancer and to compare enhanced PET/CT with the performance of PET alone and unenhanced PET/CT. Methods: Fifty patients (25 women and 25 men; mean age, 64.3 y; range, 39–84 y) with biopsy-proven pancreatic adenocarcinoma underwent enhanced 18F-FDG PET/CT for the evaluation of resectability. Criteria for unresectability were distant metastases, peritoneal carcinomatosis, arterial infiltration, or invasion of neighboring organs other than the duodenum. The performance of enhanced PET/CT regarding resectability was compared with that of PET alone and unenhanced PET/CT. Histology, intraoperative findings, and follow-up CT with clinical investigations were used as the reference standard. Results: According to the reference standard, 27 patients had disease that was not resectable because of distant metastases (n = 17), peritoneal carcinomatosis (n = 5), or local infiltration (n = 5). In the assessment of resectability, PET alone had a sensitivity of 100%, specificity of 44%, accuracy of 70%, positive predictive value of 61%, and negative predictive value of 100%; unenhanced PET/CT had respective values of 100%, 56%, 76%, 66%, and 100%; and enhanced PET/CT, 96%, 82%, 88%, 82%, and 96%. In 5 patients, unresectability was missed by all imaging methods and was diagnosed intraoperatively. Enhanced PET/CT was significantly superior to PET alone (P = 0.035), and there was a trend for enhanced PET/CT to be superior to unenhanced PET/CT (P = 0.070). Conclusion: The use of enhanced PET/CT as a 1-stop-shop imaging protocol for assessing the resectability of pancreatic cancer is feasible and accurate. Enhanced PET/CT is significantly superior to PET alone.

Diagnostic accuracy of computed tomography coronary angiography and evaluation of stress-only single-photon emission computed tomography/computed tomography hybrid imaging : comparison of prospective electrocardiogram-triggering vs. retrospective gating

AIMS To determine diagnostic accuracy, effective radiation dose, and potential value of computed tomography coronary angiography (CTCA) for hybrid imaging with single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) comparing prospective electrocardiogram (ECG)-triggering vs. retrospective ECG-gating. METHODS AND RESULTS Two hundred patients underwent standard myocardial stress/rest- SPECT perfusion imaging, which served as standard of reference. One hundred consecutive patients underwent 64-slice CTCA using prospective ECG-gating, and were compared with 100 patients who had previously undergone CTCA using retrospective ECG-gating. For predicting ischaemia, CTCA with prospective ECG-triggering and a stenosis cut-off >50% had a per-vessel sensitivity, specificity, negative, and positive predictive value of 100, 84, 100, and 30%; respective values for CTCA with retrospective ECG-gating were similar (P = n.s.): 86, 83, 98, and 33%. Combining CTCA with stress-only SPECT revealed 100% clinical agreement with regard to perfusion defects, and provided additional information in half the patients on preclinical coronary findings. Effective radiation dose was 2.2 +/- 0.7 mSv for CTCA with prospective ECG-triggering, and 19.7 +/- 4.2 mSv with retrospective ECG-gating (P < 0.001) (5.4 +/- 0.8 vs. 24.1 +/- 4.3 mSv for hybrid imaging). CONCLUSION Prospective ECG-triggering for CTCA reduces radiation dose by almost 90% without affecting diagnostic performance. Combined imaging with stress-only SPECT is an attractive alternative to standard stress/rest-SPECT for evaluation of coronary artery disease, offering additional information on preclinical atherosclerosis.

Detection rate, location, and size of pulmonary nodules in trimodality PET/CT-MR: comparison of low-dose CT and Dixon-based MR imaging.

ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to prospectively compare the detection rate, the location, and the size of pulmonary nodules in low-dose computed tomography (CT) and in magnetic resonance (MR) imaging with a 3-dimensional (3D) dual-echo gradient-echo (GRE) pulse sequence using a trimodality positron emission tomography (PET)/CT-MR setup. MethodsForty consecutive patients (25 men and 15 women; mean [SD] age 64 [12] years) referred for staging of malignancy were prospectively included in this single-center, Institutional Review Board-approved study. Imaging using trimodality PET/CT-MR setup (full ring, time-of-flight PET/CT and 3-T whole-body MR imager) comprised PET, low-dose CT for anatomic referencing/attenuation correction of PET, and MR imaging with 3D dual-echo GRE pulse sequence, allowing the reconstruction of water-only (WO) and in-phase (IP) images. Two blinded and independent readers assessed all images randomly for the presence, the location, and the size of pulmonary nodules. Detection rates, defined as the proportion of screened participants with at least 1 pulmonary nodule, were compared between low-dose CT and MR imaging including both WO and IP images. ResultsInter-reader agreements were high regarding the location (k = 0.93–0.98) and the size of pulmonary nodules (intraclass correlation analysis = 0.94–0.98) in CT and in MR imaging. Computed tomographic scans revealed 66 pulmonary nodules in 34 of the 40 patients (85%), whereas WO and IP images showed 56 and 58 pulmonary nodules in 33 of the 40 patients (83%), respectively. The detection rates of CT and MR imaging were similar (P’s >; 0.05) regarding all nodules, 18F-Fluordesoxyglucose-positive pulmonary nodules, and 18F-Fluordesoxyglucose-negative pulmonary nodules. The size of pulmonary nodules was significantly smaller on WO (P <; 0.05; mean difference, 3 mm; 95% confidence interval, − 13 to 18 mm) and IP images (P <; 0.001; mean difference, 4 mm; 95% confidence interval, −5 to 12 mm) compared with in CT. ConclusionsOur study indicates that a 3D Dixon-based, dual-echo GRE pulse sequence might be suitable for lung imaging in clinical whole-body PET/MR examinations. Although the detection rates were lower, there was no statistically significant difference on a patient-based evaluation concerning detection rates of pulmonary nodules compared with low-dose CT. Assessment of nodule location can be performed equally well with MR imaging.

Contrast-Enhanced PET/MR Imaging Versus Contrast-Enhanced PET/CT in Head and Neck Cancer: How Much MR Information Is Needed?

Considering PET/MR imaging as a whole-body staging tool, scan time restrictions in a single body area are mandatory for the cost-effective clinical operation of an integrated multimodality scanner setting. It has to be considered that 18F-FDG already acts as a contrast agent and that under certain circumstances MR contrast may not yield additional clinically relevant information. The concept of the present study was to understand which portions of the imaging information enhance the sensitivity and specificity of the hybrid examination and which portions are redundant. Methods: One hundred fifty consecutive patients referred for primary staging or restaging of head and neck cancer underwent sequential whole-body 18F-FDG PET with CT-based attenuation correction, contrast-enhanced (ce) CT, and conventional diagnostic MR imaging of the head and neck in a trimodality PET/CT–MR system. Assessed were image quality, lesion conspicuity, diagnostic confidence, and the benefit of additional coronal and sagittal imaging planes in cePET/CT, PET/MR imaging with only T2-weighted fat-suppressed images (T2w PET/MR imaging), and cePET/MR imaging. Results: In 85 patients with at least 1 PET-positive lesion, 162 lesions were evaluated. Similar robustness was found for CT and MR image quality. T2w PET/MR imaging performed similarly to (metastatic lymph nodes) or better than (primary tumors) cePET/CT in the morphologic characterization of PET-positive lesions and permitted the diagnosis of necrotic or cystic lymph node metastasis without application of intravenous contrast medium. CePET/MR imaging yielded a higher diagnostic confidence for accurate lesion conspicuity (especially in the nasopharynx and in the larynx), infiltration of adjacent structures, and perineural spread. Conclusion: The results of the present study provide evidence that PET/MR imaging can serve as a legitimate alternative to PET/CT in the clinical workup of patients with head and neck cancers. Intravenous MR contrast medium may be applied only if the exact tumor extent or infiltration of crucial structures is of concern (i.e., preoperatively) or if perineural spread is anticipated. In early assessment of the response to therapy, in follow-up examinations, or in a whole-body protocol for non–head and neck tumors, T2w PET/MR imaging may be sufficient for coverage of the head and neck. The additional MR scanning time may instead be used for advanced MR techniques to increase the specificity of the hybrid imaging examination.

Staging Pathways in Recurrent Colorectal Carcinoma: Is Contrast-Enhanced 18F-FDG PET/CT the Diagnostic Tool of Choice?

18F-FDG PET/CT has gained wide acceptance for evaluation of recurrent colorectal carcinoma. However in clinical practice, contrast-enhanced CT (ceCT) is still the first-line restaging tool. The aim of this study was to investigate the value of contrast-enhanced PET/CT (cePET/CT) as a first-line restaging tool with a special focus on the importance of the use of intravenous contrast. Methods: Fifty-four patients (17 women, 37 men; mean age, 60.3 y), referred for restaging of colorectal carcinoma, were examined with cePET/CT. Retrospective analysis was performed by 2 experienced readers by consensus: first, ceCT alone; second, non-cePET/CT; and third, cePET/CT. The number, localization, and diagnostic certainty of lesions were evaluated. Additionally, the therapeutic impact of the findings was determined. In 29 patients, histology, clinical imaging, and clinical follow-up served as the reference standard. In 25 patients, clinical follow-up and imaging served as the reference standard. Results: Overall, non-cePET/CT delivered correct additional information to the ceCT findings in 27 of 54 patients (50%). This occurred in (a) 20 of 30 patients, where ceCT was found to be inconclusive, and in (b) 7 of 24 patients with conclusive ceCT findings, where non-cePET/CT found additional lesions, leading to a therapy modification in 5 patients. Compared with non-cePET/CT, cePET/CT revealed additional information in 39 of 54 patients (72%), with therapeutic relevance in 23 patients. This large number was primarily due to correct segmental localization of liver metastases, which is crucial for surgical therapy planning. Conclusion: On the basis of its higher accuracy and therapeutic impact compared with ceCT, our data suggest that cePET/CT might be considered as the first-line diagnostic tool for restaging in patients with colorectal cancer.

TNM staging with FDG-PET/CT in patients with primary head and neck cancer

PurposePET/CT, PET+CT, and CT were compared concerning accuracies in TNM staging and malignancy detection in head and neck cancer. The impact of PET/CT compared to the other imaging modalities on therapy management was assessed.Materials and methodsFifty-five patients with suspected head and neck primary cancer underwent whole-body FDG-PET/CT. PET/CT and PET+CT were evaluated by a nuclear medicine physician and a radiologist; CT was evaluated by two radiologists, PET by two nuclear physicians. Histopathology served as the standard of reference. Differences between the staging modalities were tested for statistical significance by McNemar’s test.ResultsOverall TNM-staging and T-staging with PET/CT were more accurate than PET+CT and CT alone (p < 0.05). PET/CT was marginally more accurate than CT alone in N-staging (p = 0.04); no statistically significant difference was found when compared to PET+CT for N-staging. PET/CT altered further treatment in 13 patients compared to CT only and in 7 patients compared to PET+CT.ConclusionCombined PET/CT proved to be partly more accurate in assessing the overall TNM-stage than CT and PET+CT. These results were based on a higher accuracy concerning the T-stage, mainly in patients with metallic implants and marginally the N-stage. Therapy decisions have been influenced in a substantial number of patients. PET/CT might be considered as a first line diagnostic tool in patients with suspected primary head and neck cancer.

Combined FDG-PET/CT in response evaluation of malignant pleural mesothelioma

PURPOSE Based on the complex growth pattern of MPM, conventional response evaluation in this cancer entity is challenging. Therefore, there is growing interest in therapy response evaluation with FDG-PET/CT. The aim of the study was to evaluate the value of several FDG-PET/CT-parameters in therapy response evaluation concerning prediction of survival at baseline and after three cycles of therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS The study was performed in accordance with the regulations of the local ethics committee. Forty-one patients with proven MPM and treated with palliative pemetrexed and platinum-based chemotherapy were included. All patients were evaluated by FDG-PET/CT at baseline and after three cycles of chemotherapy. Responders and non-responders were evaluated based on modified RECIST- and EORTC-criteria. Additional PET-parameters (SUVmean, tumor lesion glycolysis (TLG) and tumor volume (PETvol)) were evaluated. Results were evaluated using the COX regression and the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS None of the baseline CT-measurements or the initial PET-parameters were predictive for survival. Based on CT, after three cycles of therapy 10 patients were categorized as responders, 30 were classified as stable disease and 1 had progressive disease. Based on PET-evaluation, 14 responders were identified, 23 patients with stable disease and 4 patients were progressive. CT-response after 3 cycles of chemotherapy was significantly related to overall survival (p=0.001). However, neither SUVmax-response (p=0.61) nor SUVmean-response (p=0.68) were related to survival. A decrease of TLG and PETvol, however, was found to be predictive (TLG: p=0.01; PETvol: p=0.002). CONCLUSION Response evaluation based on modified RECIST by CT as well as response evaluation by TLG and PETvol in FDG-PET, but not SUVmax-measurements are predictive for survival in MPM.

Whole-Body Nonenhanced PET/MR versus PET/CT in the Staging and Restaging of Cancers: Preliminary Observations

PURPOSE To assess the diagnostic performance of whole-body non-contrast material-enhanced positron emission tomography (PET)/magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and PET/computed tomography (CT) for staging and restaging of cancers and provide guidance for modality and sequence selection. MATERIALS AND METHODS This study was approved by the institutional review board and national government authorities. One hundred six consecutive patients (median age, 68 years; 46 female and 60 male patients) referred for staging or restaging of oncologic malignancies underwent whole-body imaging with a sequential trimodality PET/CT/MR system. The MR protocol included short inversion time inversion-recovery ( STIR short inversion time inversion-recovery ), Dixon-type liver accelerated volume acquisition ( LAVA liver accelerated volume acquisition ; GE Healthcare, Waukesha, Wis), and respiratory-gated periodically rotated overlapping parallel lines with enhanced reconstruction ( PROPELLER periodically rotated overlapping parallel lines with enhanced reconstruction ; GE Healthcare) sequences. Primary tumors (n = 43), local lymph node metastases (n = 74), and distant metastases (n = 66) were evaluated for conspicuity (scored 0-4), artifacts (scored 0-2), and reader confidence on PET/CT and PET/MR images. Subanalysis for lung lesions (n = 46) was also performed. Relevant incidental findings with both modalities were compared. Interreader agreement was analyzed with intraclass correlation coefficients and κ statistics. Lesion conspicuity, image artifacts, and incidental findings were analyzed with nonparametric tests. RESULTS Primary tumors were less conspicuous on STIR short inversion time inversion-recovery (3.08, P = .016) and LAVA liver accelerated volume acquisition (2.64, P = .002) images than on CT images (3.49), while findings with the PROPELLER periodically rotated overlapping parallel lines with enhanced reconstruction sequence (3.70, P = .436) were comparable to those at CT. In distant metastases, the PROPELLER periodically rotated overlapping parallel lines with enhanced reconstruction sequence (3.84) yielded better results than CT (2.88, P < .001). Subanalysis for lung lesions yielded similar results (primary lung tumors: CT, 3.71; STIR short inversion time inversion-recovery , 3.32 [P = .014]; LAVA liver accelerated volume acquisition , 2.52 [P = .002]; PROPELLER periodically rotated overlapping parallel lines with enhanced reconstruction , 3.64 [P = .546]). Readers classified lesions more confidently with PET/MR than PET/CT. However, PET/CT showed more incidental findings than PET/MR (P = .039), especially in the lung (P < .001). MR images had more artifacts than CT images. CONCLUSION PET/MR performs comparably to PET/CT in whole-body oncology and neoplastic lung disease, with the use of appropriate sequences. Further studies are needed to define regionalized PET/MR protocols with sequences tailored to specific tumor entities.

Clinical Positron Emission Tomography/Magnetic Resonance Imaging Applications

Although clinical positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) applications were obvious and have completely replaced PET in oncology, clinical applications of PET/magnetic resonance (MR) are currently not clearly defined. This is due to the lack of clinical data, which is mainly because PET/MR technology is not clinically mature at this point. Open issues are technical and concern ease of obtaining PET attenuation correction maps, dealing with, for example, MR surface coil metal in the PET field-of-view and appropriate workflows leading to a cost-effective examination. All issues can be circumvented by using a shuttle-connected PET/CT-MR system, but the penalty is that simultaneous PET and MR imaging are not possible and potential motion between examinations may occur. Clinically, some systems installed worldwide start to have a reasonable bulk of clinical data. Preliminary results suggest that in oncology, PET/MR may have advantages over PET/CT in head and neck imaging. In liver imaging, more PET-positive lesions are seen on MR than on CT, but that does not mean that PET/MR is superior to PET/CT. Possibly in some settings where a contrast-enhanced PET/CT is needed to be diagnostic, PET/MR can be done without contrast media. Although PET/CT has virtually no role in brain imaging, this may be an important domain for PET/MR, particularly in dementia imaging. The role of PET/MR in the heart is as yet undefined, and much research will have to be done to elucidate this role. At this point, it is also not clear where the simultaneity afforded by a fully integrated PET/MR is really needed. Sequential data acquisition even on separate systems and consecutive software image fusion may well be appropriate. With the increasing installed base of systems, clinical data will be forthcoming and define more clearly where there is clinical value in PET/MR at an affordable price.

Comparison of FDG-PET, PET/CT, and MRI for follow-up of colorectal liver metastases treated with radiofrequency ablation: initial results

PURPOSE Morphologic imaging after radiofrequency ablation (RFA) of liver metastases is hampered by rim-like enhancement in the ablation margin, making the identification of local tumor progression (LTP) difficult. Follow-up with PET/CT is compared to follow-up with PET alone and MRI after RFA. METHODS AND MATERIALS Sixteen patients showed 25 FDG-positive colorectal liver metastases in pre-interventional PET/CT. Post-interventional PET/CT was performed 24h after ablation and was repeated after 1, 3 and 6 months and then every 6 months. PET and PET/CT data were compared with MR data sets acquired within 14 days before or after these time points. Either histological proof by biopsy or resection, or a combination of contrast-enhanced CT at fixed time points and clinical data served as a reference. RESULTS The 25 metastases showed a mean size of 20mm and were treated with 39 RFA sessions. Ten lesions which developed LTP received a second round of RFA; four lesions received three rounds of treatment. The mean follow-up time was 22 months. Seventy-two PET/CT and 57 MR examinations were performed for follow-up. The accuracy and sensitivity for tumor detection was 86% and 76% for PET alone, 91% and 83% for PET/CT and 92% and 75% for MRI, respectively. CONCLUSIONS In comparison to PET alone, PET/CT was significantly better for detecting LTP after RFA. There were no significant differences between MRI and PET/CT. These preliminary results, however, need further verification.