Cargando…

Diagnostic Value of Delayed PET/MR in Liver Metastasis in Comparison With PET/CT

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the value of a delayed positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance (PET/MR) scan relative to a single positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) scan for liver metastasis detection. METHODS: In this study, 70 patients with solid ma...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Zhou, Nina, Meng, Xiangxi, Zhang, Yan, Yu, Boqi, Yuan, Jianmin, Yu, Jiangyuan, Zhu, Hua, Yang, Zhi
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8435726/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34527587
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2021.717687
Descripción
Sumario:OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the value of a delayed positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance (PET/MR) scan relative to a single positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) scan for liver metastasis detection. METHODS: In this study, 70 patients with solid malignancies and suspicious liver lesions undergoing 2-deoxy-2-[(18)F]fluoro-D-glucose [((18)F)FDG] PET/CT and subsequent delayed liver PET/MR scans were analyzed. The histopathological analysis and/or imaging follow-up were performed as the standard of reference. Lesion maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax), diameter, and tumor to nontumor ratio (T/N) were measured. Lesion detection sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated for both examinations. RESULTS: (1) The standard of reference revealed 208 liver lesions in 70 patients (metastasis in 56 patients with 196 lesions; benign in 14 patients with 12 lesions). Compared with PET/CT, PET/MR had higher accuracy (98.6% vs. 78.6%), sensitivity (98.2% vs. 76.8%), and specificity (100.0% vs. 85.7%) (2). The therapeutic strategies of 29 patients (41.4%) needed reconsideration after the additional PET/MR, including new metastases detected (13/70), new affected lobes identified (14/70), and false-positive corrected (2/70) (3). PET/MR detected significantly more metastases than PET/CT did, especially with small lesions. The SUVmax of the same lesion correlated well between the two acquisitions, while the delayed PET showed a higher T/N ratio. CONCLUSIONS: In liver metastasis detection, the diagnostic value of the delayed PET/MR is validated to be superior to that of PET/CT, which may aid the clinical decision-making.