These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: 18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography/Magnetic Resonance in Lymphoma: Comparison With 18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography and With the Addition of Magnetic Resonance Diffusion-Weighted Imaging.
    Author: Giraudo C, Raderer M, Karanikas G, Weber M, Kiesewetter B, Dolak W, Simonitsch-Klupp I, Mayerhoefer ME.
    Journal: Invest Radiol; 2016 Mar; 51(3):163-9. PubMed ID: 26784400.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET)/magnetic resonance (MR) (with and without diffusion-weighted imaging [DWI]) to F-FDG PET/computed tomography (CT), with regard to the assessment of nodal and extranodal involvement, in patients with Hodgkin lymphoma and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, without restriction to FDG-avid subytpes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with histologically proven lymphoma were enrolled in this prospective, institutional review board-approved study. After a single F-FDG injection, patients consecutively underwent F-FDG PET[Fraction Slash]CT and F-FDG PET/MR on the same day for staging or restaging. Three sets of images were analyzed separately: F-FDG PET/CT, F-FDG PET/MR without DWI, and F-FDG PET/MR with DWI. Region-based agreement and examination-based sensitivity and specificity were calculated for F-FDG PET/CT, F-FDG PET/MR without DWI, and F-FDG PET/MR DWI. Maximum and mean standardized uptake values (SUVmax, SUVmean) on F-FDG PET/CT and F-FDG PET/MR were compared and correlated with minimum and mean apparent diffusion coefficients (ADCmin, ADCmean). RESULTS: Thirty-four patients with a total of 40 examinations were included. Examination-based sensitivities for F-FDG PET/CT, F-FDG PET/MR, and F-FDG PET/MR DWI were 82.1%, 85.7%, and 100%, respectively; specificities were 100% for all 3 techniques; and accuracies were 87.5%, 90%, and 100%, respectively. F-FDG PET/CT was false negative in 5 of 40 examinations (all with mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue lymphoma), and F-FDG PET/MR (without DWI) was false negative in 4 of 40 examinations. Region-based percentages of agreement were 99% (κ, 0.95) between F-FDG PET/MR DWI and F-FDG PET/CT, 99.2% (κ, 0.96) between F-FDG PET/MR and F-FDG PET/CT, and 99.4% (κ, 0.97) between F-FDG PET/MR DWI and F-FDG PET/MR. There was a strong correlation between F-FDG PET/CT and F-FDG PET/MR for SUVmax (r = 0.83) and SUVmean (r = 0.81) but no significant correlation between ADCmin and SUVmax (F-FDG PET/CT: r = 0.46, P = 0.65; F-FDG PET/MR: r = 0.64, P = 0.53) or between ADCmean and SUVmean (respectively, r = -0.14, P = 0.17 for the correlation with PET/CT and r = -0.14, P = 0.14 for the correlation with PET/MR). CONCLUSIONS: F-FDG PET/MR and F-FDG PET/CT show a similar diagnostic performance in lymphoma patients. However, if DWI is included in the F-FDG PET/MR protocol, results surpass those of F-FDG PET/CT because of the higher sensitivity of DWI for mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue lymphomas.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]