Cargando…
Measurement Repeatability of (18)F-FDG PET/CT Versus (18)F-FDG PET/MRI in Solid Tumors of the Pelvis
Knowledge of the within-subject variability of (18)F-FDG PET/MRI measurements is necessary for proper interpretation of quantitative PET or MRI metrics in the context of therapeutic efficacy assessments with integrated PET/MRI scanners. The goal of this study was to determine the test–retest repeata...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Society of Nuclear Medicine
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6681694/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30733325 http://dx.doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.118.218735 |
_version_ | 1783441768806612992 |
---|---|
author | Fraum, Tyler J. Fowler, Kathryn J. Crandall, John P. Laforest, Richard A. Salter, Amber An, Hongyu Jacobs, Michael A. Grigsby, Perry W. Dehdashti, Farrokh Wahl, Richard L. |
author_facet | Fraum, Tyler J. Fowler, Kathryn J. Crandall, John P. Laforest, Richard A. Salter, Amber An, Hongyu Jacobs, Michael A. Grigsby, Perry W. Dehdashti, Farrokh Wahl, Richard L. |
author_sort | Fraum, Tyler J. |
collection | PubMed |
description | Knowledge of the within-subject variability of (18)F-FDG PET/MRI measurements is necessary for proper interpretation of quantitative PET or MRI metrics in the context of therapeutic efficacy assessments with integrated PET/MRI scanners. The goal of this study was to determine the test–retest repeatability of these metrics on PET/MRI, with comparison to similar metrics acquired by PET/CT. Methods: This prospective study enrolled subjects with pathology-proven pelvic malignancies. Baseline imaging consisted of PET/CT immediately followed by PET/MRI, using a single 370-MBq (18)F-FDG dose. Repeat imaging was performed within 7 d using an identical imaging protocol, with no oncologic therapy between sessions. PET imaging on both scanners consisted of a list-mode acquisition at a single pelvic station. The MRI consisted of 2-point Dixon imaging for attenuation correction, standard sequences for anatomic correlation, and diffusion-weighted imaging. PET data were statically reconstructed using various frame durations and minimizing uptake time differences between sessions. SUV metrics were extracted for both PET/CT and PET/MRI in each imaging session. Apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) metrics were extracted for both PET/MRI sessions. Results: The study cohort consisted of 14 subjects (13 female, 1 male) with various pelvic cancers (11 cervical, 2 rectal, 1 endometrial). For SUV(max), the within-subject coefficient of variation (wCV) appeared higher for PET/CT (8.5%–12.8%) than PET/MRI (6.6%–8.7%) across all PET reconstructions, though with no significant repeatability differences (all P values ≥ 0.08) between modalities. For lean body mass-adjusted SUV(peak), the wCVs appeared similar for PET/CT (9.9%–11.5%) and PET/MRI (9.2%–11.3%) across all PET reconstructions, again with no significant repeatability differences (all P values ≥ 0.14) between modalities. For PET/MRI, the wCV for ADC(median) of 3.5% appeared lower than the wCVs for SUV(max) (6.6%–8.7%) and SUL(peak) (9.2%–11.3%), though without significant repeatability differences (all P values ≥ 0.23). Conclusion: For solid tumors of the pelvis, the repeatability of the evaluated SUV and ADC metrics on (18)F-FDG PET/MRI is both acceptably high and similar to previously published values for (18)F-FDG PET/CT and MRI, supporting the use of (18)F-FDG PET/MRI for quantitative oncologic treatment response assessments. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6681694 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | Society of Nuclear Medicine |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-66816942019-08-07 Measurement Repeatability of (18)F-FDG PET/CT Versus (18)F-FDG PET/MRI in Solid Tumors of the Pelvis Fraum, Tyler J. Fowler, Kathryn J. Crandall, John P. Laforest, Richard A. Salter, Amber An, Hongyu Jacobs, Michael A. Grigsby, Perry W. Dehdashti, Farrokh Wahl, Richard L. J Nucl Med Oncology Knowledge of the within-subject variability of (18)F-FDG PET/MRI measurements is necessary for proper interpretation of quantitative PET or MRI metrics in the context of therapeutic efficacy assessments with integrated PET/MRI scanners. The goal of this study was to determine the test–retest repeatability of these metrics on PET/MRI, with comparison to similar metrics acquired by PET/CT. Methods: This prospective study enrolled subjects with pathology-proven pelvic malignancies. Baseline imaging consisted of PET/CT immediately followed by PET/MRI, using a single 370-MBq (18)F-FDG dose. Repeat imaging was performed within 7 d using an identical imaging protocol, with no oncologic therapy between sessions. PET imaging on both scanners consisted of a list-mode acquisition at a single pelvic station. The MRI consisted of 2-point Dixon imaging for attenuation correction, standard sequences for anatomic correlation, and diffusion-weighted imaging. PET data were statically reconstructed using various frame durations and minimizing uptake time differences between sessions. SUV metrics were extracted for both PET/CT and PET/MRI in each imaging session. Apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) metrics were extracted for both PET/MRI sessions. Results: The study cohort consisted of 14 subjects (13 female, 1 male) with various pelvic cancers (11 cervical, 2 rectal, 1 endometrial). For SUV(max), the within-subject coefficient of variation (wCV) appeared higher for PET/CT (8.5%–12.8%) than PET/MRI (6.6%–8.7%) across all PET reconstructions, though with no significant repeatability differences (all P values ≥ 0.08) between modalities. For lean body mass-adjusted SUV(peak), the wCVs appeared similar for PET/CT (9.9%–11.5%) and PET/MRI (9.2%–11.3%) across all PET reconstructions, again with no significant repeatability differences (all P values ≥ 0.14) between modalities. For PET/MRI, the wCV for ADC(median) of 3.5% appeared lower than the wCVs for SUV(max) (6.6%–8.7%) and SUL(peak) (9.2%–11.3%), though without significant repeatability differences (all P values ≥ 0.23). Conclusion: For solid tumors of the pelvis, the repeatability of the evaluated SUV and ADC metrics on (18)F-FDG PET/MRI is both acceptably high and similar to previously published values for (18)F-FDG PET/CT and MRI, supporting the use of (18)F-FDG PET/MRI for quantitative oncologic treatment response assessments. Society of Nuclear Medicine 2019-08 /pmc/articles/PMC6681694/ /pubmed/30733325 http://dx.doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.118.218735 Text en © 2019 by the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging. Immediate Open Access: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY) allows users to share and adapt with attribution, excluding materials credited to previous publications. License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. Details: http://jnm.snmjournals.org/site/misc/permission.xhtml. |
spellingShingle | Oncology Fraum, Tyler J. Fowler, Kathryn J. Crandall, John P. Laforest, Richard A. Salter, Amber An, Hongyu Jacobs, Michael A. Grigsby, Perry W. Dehdashti, Farrokh Wahl, Richard L. Measurement Repeatability of (18)F-FDG PET/CT Versus (18)F-FDG PET/MRI in Solid Tumors of the Pelvis |
title | Measurement Repeatability of (18)F-FDG PET/CT Versus (18)F-FDG PET/MRI in Solid Tumors of the Pelvis |
title_full | Measurement Repeatability of (18)F-FDG PET/CT Versus (18)F-FDG PET/MRI in Solid Tumors of the Pelvis |
title_fullStr | Measurement Repeatability of (18)F-FDG PET/CT Versus (18)F-FDG PET/MRI in Solid Tumors of the Pelvis |
title_full_unstemmed | Measurement Repeatability of (18)F-FDG PET/CT Versus (18)F-FDG PET/MRI in Solid Tumors of the Pelvis |
title_short | Measurement Repeatability of (18)F-FDG PET/CT Versus (18)F-FDG PET/MRI in Solid Tumors of the Pelvis |
title_sort | measurement repeatability of (18)f-fdg pet/ct versus (18)f-fdg pet/mri in solid tumors of the pelvis |
topic | Oncology |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6681694/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30733325 http://dx.doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.118.218735 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT fraumtylerj measurementrepeatabilityof18ffdgpetctversus18ffdgpetmriinsolidtumorsofthepelvis AT fowlerkathrynj measurementrepeatabilityof18ffdgpetctversus18ffdgpetmriinsolidtumorsofthepelvis AT crandalljohnp measurementrepeatabilityof18ffdgpetctversus18ffdgpetmriinsolidtumorsofthepelvis AT laforestricharda measurementrepeatabilityof18ffdgpetctversus18ffdgpetmriinsolidtumorsofthepelvis AT salteramber measurementrepeatabilityof18ffdgpetctversus18ffdgpetmriinsolidtumorsofthepelvis AT anhongyu measurementrepeatabilityof18ffdgpetctversus18ffdgpetmriinsolidtumorsofthepelvis AT jacobsmichaela measurementrepeatabilityof18ffdgpetctversus18ffdgpetmriinsolidtumorsofthepelvis AT grigsbyperryw measurementrepeatabilityof18ffdgpetctversus18ffdgpetmriinsolidtumorsofthepelvis AT dehdashtifarrokh measurementrepeatabilityof18ffdgpetctversus18ffdgpetmriinsolidtumorsofthepelvis AT wahlrichardl measurementrepeatabilityof18ffdgpetctversus18ffdgpetmriinsolidtumorsofthepelvis |