Hybrid PET/MRI in major cancers: a scoping review.
Edetic Acid
/ analogs & derivatives
Fluorodeoxyglucose F18
Gallium Isotopes
Gallium Radioisotopes
Humans
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
/ methods
Multimodal Imaging
/ methods
Neoplasm Metastasis
Neoplasms
/ diagnostic imaging
Oligopeptides
Positron Emission Tomography Computed Tomography
/ methods
Predictive Value of Tests
Radiopharmaceuticals
18F-FDG
Oncology
PET/CT
PET/MRI
Staging
Journal
European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging
ISSN: 1619-7089
Titre abrégé: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 101140988
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Sep 2019
Sep 2019
Historique:
received:
27
03
2019
accepted:
13
06
2019
pubmed:
4
7
2019
medline:
15
9
2020
entrez:
4
7
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
PET/MRI was introduced for clinical use in 2011 and is now an established modality for the imaging of brain and certain pelvic cancers, whereas clinical use for the imaging of other forms of cancer is not yet widespread. We therefore systematically investigated what has been published on the use of PET/MRI compared to PET/CT in the imaging of cancers outside the brain, focusing on clinical areas of application related to diagnosis, staging and restaging. A systematic search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library was performed. Studies evaluating the diagnostic performance of simultaneous PET/MRI in cancer patients were chosen. A total of 3,138 publications were identified and 116 published during the period 2012-2018 were included and were grouped according to the major cancer forms: 13 head and neck (HNC), 9 breast (BC), 21 prostate (PC), 14 gynaecological, 13 gastrointestinal (GIC), and 46 various cancers. Data from studies comparing PET/MRI and PET/CT for staging/restaging suggested the superiority of The scoping review methodology resulted in the identification of a huge number of records, of which less than 5% were suitable for inclusion and only a limited number allowed conclusions on the advantages/disadvantages of PET/MRI compared to PET/CT in the oncological setting. There was evidence to support the use of FDG PET/MRI in staging of nasopharyngeal cancer and high-risk BC. Preliminary data indicate the superiority of PET/MRI for the detection of local recurrence in PC, local tumour invasion in cervical cancer, and liver metastases in colorectal cancer. These conclusions are based on small datasets and need to be further explored.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31267161
doi: 10.1007/s00259-019-04402-8
pii: 10.1007/s00259-019-04402-8
doi:
Substances chimiques
Gallium Isotopes
0
Gallium Radioisotopes
0
Oligopeptides
0
Radiopharmaceuticals
0
gallium 68 PSMA-11
0
Fluorodeoxyglucose F18
0Z5B2CJX4D
Edetic Acid
9G34HU7RV0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2138-2151Références
Peters MD, Godfrey CM, Khalil H, McInerney P, Parker D, Soares CB. Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015;13:141–6. https://doi.org/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000050 .
doi: 10.1097/XEB.0000000000000050
pubmed: 26134548
Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O'Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169:467–73. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850 .
doi: 10.7326/M18-0850
pubmed: 30178033
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ. 2009;339:b2535. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2535 .
doi: 10.1136/bmj.b2535
pubmed: 19622551
pmcid: 2714657
Chan SC, Yeh CH, Yen TC, Ng SH, Chang JT, Lin CY, et al. Clinical utility of simultaneous whole-body (18)F-FDG PET/MRI as a single-step imaging modality in the staging of primary nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018;45:1297–308. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-018-3986-3 .
doi: 10.1007/s00259-018-3986-3
pubmed: 29502310
Schaarschmidt BM, Heusch P, Buchbender C, Ruhlmann M, Bergmann C, Ruhlmann V, et al. Locoregional tumour evaluation of squamous cell carcinoma in the head and neck area: a comparison between MRI, PET/CT and integrated PET/MRI. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016;43:92–102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-015-3145-z .
doi: 10.1007/s00259-015-3145-z
pubmed: 26243264
Kubiessa K, Purz S, Gawlitza M, Kuhn A, Fuchs J, Steinhoff KG, et al. Initial clinical results of simultaneous 18F-FDG PET/MRI in comparison to 18F-FDG PET/CT in patients with head and neck cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;41:639–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-013-2633-2 .
doi: 10.1007/s00259-013-2633-2
pubmed: 24292211
Vrachimis A, Burg MC, Wenning C, Allkemper T, Weckesser M, Schafers M, et al. [(18)F]FDG PET/CT outperforms [(18)F]FDG PET/MRI in differentiated thyroid cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016;43:212–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-015-3195-2 .
doi: 10.1007/s00259-015-3195-2
pubmed: 26419851
Vrachimis A, Stegger L, Wenning C, Noto B, Burg MC, Konnert JR, et al. [(68)Ga]DOTATATE PET/MRI and [(18)F]FDG PET/CT are complementary and superior to diffusion-weighted MR imaging for radioactive-iodine-refractory differentiated thyroid cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016;43:1765–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-016-3378-5 .
doi: 10.1007/s00259-016-3378-5
pubmed: 27059853
Binse I, Poeppel TD, Ruhlmann M, Gomez B, Umutlu L, Bockisch A, et al. Imaging with (124)I in differentiated thyroid carcinoma: is PET/MRI superior to PET/CT? Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016;43:1011–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-015-3288-y .
doi: 10.1007/s00259-015-3288-y
pubmed: 26686334
Catalano OA, Daye D, Signore A, Iannace C, Vangel M, Luongo A, et al. Staging performance of whole-body DWI, PET/CT and PET/MRI in invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast. Int J Oncol. 2017;51:281–8. https://doi.org/10.3892/ijo.2017.4012 .
doi: 10.3892/ijo.2017.4012
pubmed: 28535000
Sawicki LM, Grueneisen J, Schaarschmidt BM, Buchbender C, Nagarajah J, Umutlu L, et al. Evaluation of (18)F-FDG PET/MRI, (18)F-FDG PET/CT, MRI, and CT in whole-body staging of recurrent breast cancer. Eur J Radiol. 2016;85:459–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2015.12.010 .
doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2015.12.010
pubmed: 26781152
Melsaether AN, Raad RA, Pujara AC, Ponzo FD, Pysarenko KM, Jhaveri K, et al. Comparison of whole-body (18)F FDG PET/MR imaging and whole-body (18)F FDG PET/CT in terms of lesion detection and radiation dose in patients with breast cancer. Radiology. 2016;281:193–202. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2016151155 .
doi: 10.1148/radiol.2016151155
pubmed: 27023002
pmcid: 5028256
Catalano OA, Nicolai E, Rosen BR, Luongo A, Catalano M, Iannace C, et al. Comparison of CE-FDG-PET/CT with CE-FDG-PET/MR in the evaluation of osseous metastases in breast cancer patients. Br J Cancer. 2015;112:1452–60. https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2015.112 .
doi: 10.1038/bjc.2015.112
pubmed: 25871331
pmcid: 4453670
Taneja S, Jena A, Goel R, Sarin R, Kaul S. Simultaneous whole-body (18)F-FDG PET-MRI in primary staging of breast cancer: a pilot study. Eur J Radiol. 2014;83:2231–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2014.09.008 .
doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2014.09.008
pubmed: 25282709
Domachevsky L, Bernstine H, Goldberg N, Nidam M, Stern D, Sosna J, et al. Early (68)GA-PSMA PET/MRI acquisition: assessment of lesion detectability and PET metrics in patients with prostate cancer undergoing same-day late PET/CT. Clin Radiol. 2017;72:944–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2017.06.116 .
doi: 10.1016/j.crad.2017.06.116
pubmed: 28716214
Eiber M, Rauscher I, Souvatzoglou M, Maurer T, Schwaiger M, Holzapfel K, et al. Prospective head-to-head comparison of (11)C-choline-PET/MR and (11)C-choline-PET/CT for restaging of biochemical recurrent prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017;44:2179–88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-017-3797-y .
doi: 10.1007/s00259-017-3797-y
pubmed: 28803358
Freitag MT, Radtke JP, Afshar-Oromieh A, Roethke MC, Hadaschik BA, Gleave M, et al. Local recurrence of prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy is at risk to be missed in (68)Ga-PSMA-11-PET of PET/CT and PET/MRI: comparison with mpMRI integrated in simultaneous PET/MRI. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017;44:776–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-016-3594-z .
doi: 10.1007/s00259-016-3594-z
pubmed: 27988802
Freitag MT, Radtke JP, Hadaschik BA, Kopp-Schneider A, Eder M, Kopka K, et al. Comparison of hybrid (68)Ga-PSMA PET/MRI and (68)Ga-PSMA PET/CT in the evaluation of lymph node and bone metastases of prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016;43:70–83. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-015-3206-3 .
doi: 10.1007/s00259-015-3206-3
Souvatzoglou M, Eiber M, Takei T, Furst S, Maurer T, Gaertner F, et al. Comparison of integrated whole-body [11C]choline PET/MR with PET/CT in patients with prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;40:1486–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-013-2467-y .
doi: 10.1007/s00259-013-2467-y
pubmed: 23817684
Schwartz M, Gavane SC, Bou-Ayache J, Kolev V, Zakashansky K, Prasad-Hayes M, et al. Feasibility and diagnostic performance of hybrid PET/MRI compared with PET/CT for gynecological malignancies: a prospective pilot study. Abdom Radiol (NY). 2018;43:3462–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-018-1665-2 .
doi: 10.1007/s00261-018-1665-2
Beiderwellen K, Grueneisen J, Ruhlmann V, Buderath P, Aktas B, Heusch P, et al. [(18)F]FDG PET/MRI vs. PET/CT for whole-body staging in patients with recurrent malignancies of the female pelvis: initial results. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015;42:56–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-014-2902-8 .
doi: 10.1007/s00259-014-2902-8
pubmed: 25223420
Kirchner J, Sawicki LM, Suntharalingam S, Grueneisen J, Ruhlmann V, Aktas B, et al. Whole-body staging of female patients with recurrent pelvic malignancies: ultra-fast 18F-FDG PET/MRI compared to 18F-FDG PET/CT and CT. PLoS One. 2017;12:e0172553. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0172553 .
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0172553
pubmed: 28225831
pmcid: 5321458
Grueneisen J, Schaarschmidt BM, Heubner M, Suntharalingam S, Milk I, Kinner S, et al. Implementation of FAST-PET/MRI for whole-body staging of female patients with recurrent pelvic malignancies: a comparison to PET/CT. Eur J Radiol. 2015;84:2097–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2015.08.010 .
doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2015.08.010
pubmed: 26321491
Sawicki LM, Deuschl C, Beiderwellen K, Ruhlmann V, Poeppel TD, Heusch P, et al. Evaluation of (68)Ga-DOTATOC PET/MRI for whole-body staging of neuroendocrine tumours in comparison with (68)Ga-DOTATOC PET/CT. Eur Radiol. 2017;27:4091–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-4803-2 .
doi: 10.1007/s00330-017-4803-2
pubmed: 28439648
Berzaczy D, Giraudo C, Haug AR, Raderer M, Senn D, Karanikas G, et al. Whole-body 68Ga-DOTANOC PET/MRI versus 68Ga-DOTANOC PET/CT in patients with neuroendocrine tumors: a prospective study in 28 patients. Clin Nucl Med. 2017;42:669–74. https://doi.org/10.1097/rlu.0000000000001753 .
doi: 10.1097/RLU.0000000000001753
pubmed: 28682844
pmcid: 5636054
Joo I, Lee JM, Lee DH, Lee ES, Paeng JC, Lee SJ, et al. Preoperative assessment of pancreatic cancer with FDG PET/MR imaging versus FDG PET/CT plus contrast-enhanced multidetector CT: a prospective preliminary study. Radiology. 2017;282:149–59. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2016152798 .
doi: 10.1148/radiol.2016152798
pubmed: 27556273
Catalano OA, Coutinho AM, Sahani DV, Vangel MG, Gee MS, Hahn PF, et al. Colorectal cancer staging: comparison of whole-body PET/CT and PET/MR. Abdom Radiol (NY). 2017;42:1141–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-016-0985-3 .
doi: 10.1007/s00261-016-0985-3
Brendle C, Schwenzer NF, Rempp H, Schmidt H, Pfannenberg C, la Fougere C, et al. Assessment of metastatic colorectal cancer with hybrid imaging: comparison of reading performance using different combinations of anatomical and functional imaging techniques in PET/MRI and PET/CT in a short case series. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016;43:123–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-015-3137-z .
doi: 10.1007/s00259-015-3137-z
pubmed: 26224536
Pham MT, Rajic A, Greig JD, Sargeant JM, Papadopoulos A, McEwen SA. A scoping review of scoping reviews: advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency. Res Synth Methods. 2014;5:371–85. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1123 .
doi: 10.1002/jrsm.1123
pubmed: 26052958
pmcid: 4491356
Munn Z, Peters MDJ, Stern C, Tufanaru C, McArthur A, Aromataris E. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18:143. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x .
doi: 10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x
pubmed: 30453902
pmcid: 6245623
Chandarana H, Heacock L, Rakheja R, DeMello LR, Bonavita J, Block TK, et al. Pulmonary nodules in patients with primary malignancy: comparison of hybrid PET/MR and PET/CT imaging. Radiology. 2013;268:874–81. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.13130620 .
doi: 10.1148/radiol.13130620
pubmed: 23737537
Sawicki LM, Grueneisen J, Buchbender C, Schaarschmidt BM, Gomez B, Ruhlmann V, et al. Comparative performance of (18)F-FDG PET/MRI and (18)F-FDG PET/CT in detection and characterization of pulmonary lesions in 121 oncologic patients. J Nucl Med. 2016;57:582–6. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.115.167486 .
doi: 10.2967/jnumed.115.167486
pubmed: 26742715
Rauscher I, Eiber M, Furst S, Souvatzoglou M, Nekolla SG, Ziegler SI, et al. PET/MR imaging in the detection and characterization of pulmonary lesions: technical and diagnostic evaluation in comparison to PET/CT. J Nucl Med. 2014;55:724–9. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.113.129247 .
doi: 10.2967/jnumed.113.129247
pubmed: 24652827
Groheux D, Cochet A, Humbert O, Alberini JL, Hindie E, Mankoff D. (18)F-FDG PET/CT for staging and restaging of breast cancer. J Nucl Med. 2016;57(Suppl 1):17S–26S. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.115.157859 .
doi: 10.2967/jnumed.115.157859
pubmed: 26834096
Riedl CC, Slobod E, Jochelson M, Morrow M, Goldman DA, Gonen M, et al. Retrospective analysis of 18F-FDG PET/CT for staging asymptomatic breast cancer patients younger than 40 years. J Nucl Med. 2014;55:1578–83. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.114.143297 .
doi: 10.2967/jnumed.114.143297
pubmed: 25214641
pmcid: 4414239
Hoilund-Carlsen PF, Hess S, Werner TJ, Alavi A. Cancer metastasizes to the bone marrow and not to the bone: time for a paradigm shift! Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018;45:893–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-018-3959-6 .
doi: 10.1007/s00259-018-3959-6
pubmed: 29468310
pmcid: 5915506