Detection and quantification of focal uptake in head and neck tumours: 18F-FDG PET/MR versus PET/CT

PurposeOur objectives were to assess the quality of PET images and coregistered anatomic images obtained with PET/MR, to evaluate the detection of focal uptake and SUV, and to compare these findings with those of PET/CT in patients with head and neck tumours.MethodsThe study group comprised 32 consecutive patients with malignant head and neck tumours who underwent whole-body 18F-FDG PET/MR and PET/CT. PET images were reconstructed using the attenuation correction sequence for PET/MR and CT for PET/CT. Two experienced observers evaluated the anonymized data. They evaluated image and fusion quality, lesion conspicuity, anatomic location, number and size of categorized (benign versus assumed malignant) lesions with focal uptake. Region of interest (ROI) analysis was performed to determine SUVs of lesions and organs for both modalities. Statistical analysis considered data clustering due to multiple lesions per patient.ResultsPET/MR coregistration and image fusion was feasible in all patients. The analysis included 66 malignant lesions (tumours, metastatic lymph nodes and distant metastases), 136 benign lesions and 470 organ ROIs. There was no statistically significant difference between PET/MR and PET/CT regarding rating scores for image quality, fusion quality, lesion conspicuity or anatomic location, number of detected lesions and number of patients with and without malignant lesions. A high correlation was observed for SUVmean and SUVmax measured on PET/MR and PET/CT for malignant lesions, benign lesions and organs (ρ = 0.787 to 0.877, p < 0.001). SUVmean and SUVmax measured on PET/MR were significantly lower than on PET/CT for malignant tumours, metastatic neck nodes, benign lesions, bone marrow, and liver (p < 0.05). The main factor affecting the difference between SUVs in malignant lesions was tumour size (p < 0.01).ConclusionIn patients with head and neck tumours, PET/MR showed equivalent performance to PET/CT in terms of qualitative results. Comparison of SUVs revealed an excellent correlation for measurements on both modalities, but underestimation of SUVs measured on PET/MR as compared to PET/CT.

[1]  R. Hustinx,et al.  PET/CT in head and neck cancer: an update , 2010, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[2]  M. Ines Boechat,et al.  Estimated cumulative radiation dose from PET/CT in children with malignancies: a 5-year retrospective review , 2009, Pediatric Radiology.

[3]  Abass Alavi,et al.  Dual time point 18F-FDG PET for the evaluation of pulmonary nodules. , 2002, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[4]  Ciprian Catana,et al.  Performance test of an LSO-APD detector in a 7-T MRI scanner for simultaneous PET/MRI. , 2006, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[5]  H. Zaidi,et al.  Design and performance evaluation of a whole-body Ingenuity TF PET–MRI system , 2011, Physics in medicine and biology.

[6]  C. Kuhl,et al.  MRI-Based Attenuation Correction for Hybrid PET/MRI Systems: A 4-Class Tissue Segmentation Technique Using a Combined Ultrashort-Echo-Time/Dixon MRI Sequence , 2012, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[7]  A. Alavi,et al.  Dual time point 18F-FDG PET imaging for differentiating malignant from inflammatory processes. , 2001, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[8]  M. Borri,et al.  Changes in functional imaging parameters following induction chemotherapy have important implications for individualised patient-based treatment regimens for advanced head and neck cancer. , 2013, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[9]  D. Altman,et al.  Measuring agreement in method comparison studies , 1999, Statistical methods in medical research.

[10]  M. Forsting,et al.  Standardized uptake values for [¹⁸F] FDG in normal organ tissues: comparison of whole-body PET/CT and PET/MRI. , 2013, European journal of radiology.

[11]  M. Uder,et al.  Comparison of lesion detection and quantitation of tracer uptake between PET from a simultaneously acquiring whole-body PET/MR hybrid scanner and PET from PET/CT , 2012, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[12]  Matthias Hofmann,et al.  Hybrid PET/MRI of Intracranial Masses: Initial Experiences and Comparison to PET/CT , 2010, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[13]  A. Ahmadian,et al.  MRI-guided attenuation correction in whole-body PET/MR: assessment of the effect of bone attenuation , 2013, Annals of Nuclear Medicine.

[14]  G. Cook,et al.  Can 18F-FDG PET/CT Reliably Assess Response to Primary Treatment of Head and Neck Cancer? , 2013, Clinical nuclear medicine.

[15]  S C Huang,et al.  Anatomy of SUV. Standardized uptake value. , 2000, Nuclear medicine and biology.

[16]  Susanne Heinzer,et al.  Sequential whole-body PET/MR scanner: concept, clinical use, and optimisation after two years in the clinic. The manufacturer’s perspective , 2013, Magnetic Resonance Materials in Physics, Biology and Medicine.

[17]  H. Zaidi,et al.  An outlook on future design of hybrid PET/MRI systems. , 2011, Medical physics.

[18]  R. Günther,et al.  Automatic, three-segment, MR-based attenuation correction for whole-body PET/MR data , 2010, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[19]  Axel Martinez-Möller,et al.  Simulation of a MR-PET protocol for staging of head-and-neck cancer including Dixon MR for attenuation correction. , 2012, European journal of radiology.

[20]  P. Dulguerov,et al.  Neoplastic invasion of laryngeal cartilage: reassessment of criteria for diagnosis at MR imaging. , 2008, Radiology.

[21]  Osman Ratib,et al.  Approaches for the optimization of MR protocols in clinical hybrid PET/MRI studies , 2013, Magnetic Resonance Materials in Physics, Biology and Medicine.

[22]  D. Brizel,et al.  Using FDG-PET to Measure Early Treatment Response in Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma: Quantifying Intrinsic Variability in Order to Understand Treatment-Induced Change , 2013, American Journal of Neuroradiology.

[23]  K S Panageas,et al.  Statistical issues in analysis of diagnostic imaging experiments with multiple observations per patient. , 2001, Radiology.

[24]  Bernd J. Pichler,et al.  Feasibility of simultaneous PET/MR imaging in the head and upper neck area , 2011, European Radiology.

[25]  R. Boellaard,et al.  Effects of noise, image resolution, and ROI definition on the accuracy of standard uptake values: a simulation study. , 2004, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[26]  A. Alavi,et al.  Use of a corrected standardized uptake value based on the lesion size on CT permits accurate characterization of lung nodules on FDG-PET , 2002, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[27]  T. Turkington,et al.  A systematic review of the factors affecting accuracy of SUV measurements. , 2010, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[28]  S. Taylor.  Head and neck cancer. , 1991, Cancer chemotherapy and biological response modifiers.

[29]  Karl-Olof Lovblad,et al.  Functional imaging of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma with diffusion-weighted MRI and FDG PET/CT: quantitative analysis of ADC and SUV , 2013, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[30]  J Roehrig,et al.  The manufacturer's perspective. , 2005, The British journal of radiology.

[31]  Michael Laniado,et al.  PET/MRI in head and neck cancer: initial experience , 2012, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[32]  Sung-Cheng Huang,et al.  Anatomy of SUV , 2000 .

[33]  Ernst J. Rummeny,et al.  Value of a Dixon-based MR/PET attenuation correction sequence for the localization and evaluation of PET-positive lesions , 2011, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[34]  David Izquierdo-Garcia,et al.  Preclinical Evaluation of MR Attenuation Correction Versus CT Attenuation Correction on a Sequential Whole-Body MR/PET Scanner , 2013, Investigative radiology.

[35]  M. Blettner,et al.  Concordance analysis: part 16 of a series on evaluation of scientific publications. , 2011, Deutsches Arzteblatt international.

[36]  G. Delso,et al.  Performance Measurements of the Siemens mMR Integrated Whole-Body PET/MR Scanner , 2011, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[37]  Seong Soo Shin,et al.  The Feasibility of 18F-FDG PET scans 1 month after completing radiotherapy of squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. , 2007, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[38]  Nassir Navab,et al.  Tissue Classification as a Potential Approach for Attenuation Correction in Whole-Body PET/MRI: Evaluation with PET/CT Data , 2009, Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[39]  Jingfei Ma.  Dixon techniques for water and fat imaging , 2008, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[40]  C. Claussen,et al.  Simultaneous Mr/pet Imaging of the Human Brain: Feasibility Study 1 , 2022 .

[41]  A. Drzezga,et al.  First Clinical Experience with Integrated Whole-Body PET/MR: Comparison to PET/CT in Patients with Oncologic Diagnoses , 2012, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[42]  Toshinori Hirai,et al.  Impact of FDG-PET/CT imaging on nodal staging for head-and-neck squamous cell carcinoma. , 2007, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[43]  Sally Galbraith,et al.  A Study of Clustered Data and Approaches to Its Analysis , 2010, The Journal of Neuroscience.