Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Diagnostic performance of whole-body [18F]FDG PET/MR in cancer M staging: A systematic review and meta-analysis

  • Molecular Imaging
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

To calculate the pooled diagnostic performances of whole-body [18F]FDG PET/MR in M staging of [18F]FDG-avid cancer entities.

Methods

A diagnostic meta-analysis was conducted on the [18F]FDG PET/MR in M staging, including studies: (1) evaluated [18F]FDG PET/MR in detecting distant metastasis; (2) compared[ 18F]FDG PET/MR with histopathology, follow-up, or asynchronous multimodality imaging as the reference standard; (3) provided data for the whole-body evaluation; (4) provided adequate data to calculate the meta-analytic performances. Pooled performances were calculated with their confidence interval. In addition, forest plots, SROC curves, and likelihood ratio scatterplots were drawn. All analyses were performed using STATA 16.

Results

From 52 eligible studies, 2289 patients and 2072 metastases were entered in the meta-analysis. The whole-body pooled sensitivities were 0.95 (95%CI: 0.91–0.97) and 0.97 (95%CI: 0.91–0.99) at the patient and lesion levels, respectively. The pooled specificities were 0.99 (95%CI: 0.97–1.00) and 0.97 (95%CI: 0.90–0.99), respectively. Additionally, subgroup analyses were performed. The calculated pooled sensitivities for lung, gastrointestinal, breast, and gynecological cancers were 0.90, 0.93, 1.00, and 0.97, respectively. The pooled specificities were 1.00, 0.98, 0.97, and 1.00, respectively. Furthermore, the pooled sensitivities for non-small cell lung, colorectal, and cervical cancers were 0.92, 0.96, and 0.86, respectively. The pooled specificities were 1.00, 0.95, and 1.00, respectively.

Conclusion

[18F]FDG PET/MR was a highly accurate modality in M staging in the reported [18F]FDG-avid malignancies. The results showed high sensitivity and specificity in each reviewed malignancy type. Thus, our findings may help clinicians and patients to be confident about the performance of [18F]FDG PET/MR in the clinic.

Clinical relevance statement

Although [18F]FDG PET/MR is not a routine imaging technique in current guidelines, mostly due to its availability and logistic issues, our findings might add to the limited evidence regarding its performance, showing a sensitivity of 0.95 and specificity of 0.97.

Key Points

• The whole-body [18F]FDG PET/MR showed high accuracy in detecting distant metastases at both patient and lesion levels.

• The pooled sensitivities were 95% and 97% and pooled specificities were 99% and 97% at patient and lesion levels, respectively.

• The results suggested that 18F-FDG PET/MR was a strong modality in the exclusion and confirmation of distant metastases.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

AUC:

Area under the curve

CI:

Confidence interval

CT:

Computed tomography

DOR:

Diagnostic odds ratio

FN:

False negative

FP:

False positive

LR:

Likelihood ratio

MR:

Magnetic resonance imaging

NSCLC:

Non-small cell lung cancer

PET:

Positron emission tomography

SROC:

Summary receiver-operating characteristic

TN:

True negative

TP:

True positive

References

  1. Buchbender C, Heusner TA, Lauenstein TC, Bockisch A, Antoch G (2012) Oncologic PET/MRI, part 1: Tumors of the brain, head and neck, chest, abdomen, and pelvis. J Nucl Med 53:928–938

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Chen LL, Blumm N, Christakis NA, Barabasi AL, Deisboeck TS (2009) Cancer metastasis networks and the prediction of progression patterns. Br J Cancer 101:749–758

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Fares J, Fares MY, Khachfe HH, Salhab HA, Fares Y (2020) Molecular principles of metastasis: a hallmark of cancer revisited. Signal Transduct Target Ther 5:1–17

    Google Scholar 

  4. Fletcher JW, Djulbegovic B, Soares HP et al (2008) Recommendations on the use of 18F-FDG PET in oncology. J Nucl Med 49:480–508

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Jadvar H, Alavi A, Gambhir SS (2009) 18F-FDG uptake in lung, breast, and colon cancers: Molecular biology correlates and disease characterization. J Nucl Med 50:1820–1827

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Miles K, McQueen L, Ngai S, Law P (2015) Evidence-based medicine and clinical fluorodeoxyglucose PET/MRI in oncology. Cancer Imaging 15:1–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Morsing A, Hildebrandt MG, Vilstrup MH (2019) Hybrid PET/MRI in major cancers: a scoping review. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 46:2138–2151

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Weber W (2020) Clinical PET/MR. In: Schober O, Kiessling F, Debus J (eds) Molecular Imaging in Oncology. Recent Results in Cancer Research, vol 216. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-42618-7_22

  9. Singnurkar A, Poon R, Metser U (2017) Comparison of 18F-FDG-PET/CT and 18F-FDG-PET/MR imaging in oncology: a systematic review. Ann Nucl Med 31:366–378

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Seifert R, Kersting D, Rischpler C et al (2022) Clinical Use of PET/MR in Oncology: An Update. Semin Nucl Med 52:356–364

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Salameh J, Bossuyt PM, McGrath TA, et al. (2020) Preferred reporting items for systematic review and metaanalysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies (PRISMA-DTA): explanation, elaboration, and checklist. BMJ 370:m2632. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m2632

  12. Deeks JJ, Higgins JP, Altman DG (2008) Analysing Data and Undertaking Meta-Analyses. In Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (eds J.P. Higgins and S. Green). https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470712184.ch9

  13. Dwamena B (2009) MIDAS: Stata module for meta-analytical integration of diagnostic test accuracy studies. https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:boc:bocode:s456880

  14. Harbord RM, Whiting P (2009) Metandi: meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy using hierarchical logistic regression. Stata J 9:211–229

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Beiderwellen K, Grueneisen J, Ruhlmann V et al (2015) [18F]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 42:56–65

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Berzaczy D, Fueger B, Hoeller C et al (2020) Whole-Body [18F]FDG-PET/MRI vs. [18F]FDG-PET/CT in Malignant Melanoma. Mol Imaging Biol 22:739–744

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Bian LH, Wang M, Gong J et al (2019) Comparison of integrated PET/MRI with PET/CT in evaluation of endometrial cancer: a retrospective analysis of 81 cases. PeerJ 7:e7081

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Botsikas D, Bagetakos I, Picarra M et al (2019) What is the diagnostic performance of 18-FDG-PET/MR compared to PET/CT for the N- and M- staging of breast cancer? Eur Radiol 29:1787–1798

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Brendle C, Schwenzer NF, Rempp H et al (2016) 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 43:123–132

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Bruckmann NM, Sawicki LM, Kirchner J et al (2020) Prospective evaluation of whole-body MRI and 18F-FDG PET/MRI in N and M staging of primary breast cancer patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 47:2816–2825

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Bruckmann NM, Kirchner J, Morawitz J, et al. (2021) Prospective comparison of CT and 18F-FDG PET/MRI in N and M staging of primary breast cancer patients: Initial results. PLoS One 16: e0260804. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260804

  22. Catalano OA, Daye D, Signore A et al (2017) Staging performance of whole-body DWI, PET/CT and PET/MRI in invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast. Int J Oncol 51:281–288

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Catalano OA, Coutinho AM, Sahani DV (2017) Colorectal cancer staging: comparison of whole-body PET/CT and PET/MR. Abdom Radiol (NY) 42:1141–1151

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Ferrone C, Goyal L, Qadan M et al (2020) Management implications of fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance in untreated intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 47:1871–1884

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Fraioli F, Screaton NJ, Janes SM et al (2015) Non-small-cell lung cancer resectability: diagnostic value of PET/MR. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 42:49–55

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Grueneisen J, Beiderwellen K, Heusch P et al (2014) Simultaneous Positron Emission Tomography/Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Whole-Body Staging in Patients With Recurrent Gynecological Malignancies of the Pelvis A Comparison to Whole-Body Magnetic Resonance Imaging Alone. Invest Radiol 49:808–815

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Grueneisen J, Schaarschmidt BM, Beiderwellen K et al (2014) Diagnostic value of diffusion-weighted imaging in simultaneous 18F-FDG PET/MR imaging for whole-body staging of women with pelvic malignancies. J Nucl Med 55:1930–1935

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Grueneisen J, Schaarschmidt BM, Heubner M et al (2015) Integrated PET/MRI for whole-body staging of patients with primary cervical cancer: preliminary results. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 42:1814–1824

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Heusch P, Nensa F, Schaarschmidt B et al (2015) Diagnostic accuracy of whole-body PET/MRI and whole-body PET/CT for TNM staging in oncology. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 42:42–48

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Huellner MW, de Galiza BF, Husmann L et al (2016) TNM Staging of Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Comparison of PET/MR and PET/CT. J Nucl Med 57:21–26

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Joo I, Lee JM, Lee DH et al (2017) Preoperative assessment of pancreatic cancer with FDG PET/MR imaging versus FDG PET/CT plus contrast-enhanced multidetector CT: A prospective preliminary study. Radiology 282:149–159

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Kirchner J, Sawicki LM, Deuschl C, et al (2017) 18 F-FDG PET/MR imaging in patients with suspected liver lesions: Value of liver-specific contrast agent Gadobenate dimeglumine. PLoS One 12:e0180349. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0180349

  33. Kirchner J, Martin O, Umutlu L, et al (2020) Impact of 18F-FDG PET/MR on therapeutic management in high risk primary breast cancer patients – A prospective evaluation of staging algorithms. Eur J Radiol 128:108975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2020.108975

  34. Klain M, Nappi C, Nicolai E et al (2020) Comparison of simultaneous 18F-2-[18F] FDG PET/MR and PET/CT in the follow-up of patients with differentiated thyroid cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 47:3066–3073

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Lee SJ, Seo HJ, Kang KW et al (2015) Clinical performance of whole-body 18F-FDG PET/Dixon-VIBE, T1-weighted, and T2-weighted MRI protocol in colorectal cancer. Clin Nucl Med 40:e392–e398

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Lee DH, Kim SH, Joo I, Hur BY, Han JK (2016) Comparison between 18F-FDG PET/MRI and MDCT for the assessment of preoperative staging and resectability of gastric cancer. Eur J Radiol 85:1085–1091

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Lee SM, Goo JM, Park CM et al (2016) Preoperative staging of non-small cell lung cancer: prospective comparison of PET/MR and PET/CT. Eur Radiol 26:3850–3857

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Li CC, Chien TM, Huang SP et al (2020) 18 f-fdg pet/mr versus mr alone in whole-body primary staging and restaging of patients with rectal cancer: What is the benefit of pet? J Clin Med 9:1–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Li H, Chen X, Zhang Y, Wang K, Gao Z (2021) Value of18f-fdg hybrid pet/mr in differentiated thyroid cancer patients with negative131i whole-body scan and elevated thyroglobulin levels. Cancer Manag Res 13:2869–2876

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Yi Liu, Dong Zheng, Jia-jin Liu, et al. (2019) Comparing PET/MRI with PET/CT for pretreatment staging of gastric cancer. Gastroenterol Res Pract 9564627. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/9564627

  41. Melsaether AN, Raad RA, Pujara AC et al (2016) Comparison of Whole-Body F-18 FDG PET/MR Imaging and Whole-Body F-18 FDG PET/CT in Terms of Lesion Detection and Radiation Dose in Patients with Breast Cancer. Radiology 281:193–202

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Mongula JE, Bakers FC, Vöö S et al (2018) Positron emission tomography-magnetic resonance imaging (PET-MRI) for response assessment after radiation therapy of cervical carcinoma: a pilot study. EJNMMI Res 8:1–8

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Ohno Y, Koyama H, Yoshikawa T et al (2015) Three-way comparison of whole-body MR, coregistered whole-body FDG PET/MR, and integrated whole-body FDG PET/CT imaging: TNM and stage assessment capability for non-small cell lung cancer patients. Radiology 275:849–861

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Ohno Y, Yoshikawa T, Kishida Y et al (2017) Diagnostic performance of different imaging modalities in the assessment of distant metastasis and local recurrence of tumor in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. J Magn Reson Imaging 46:1707–1717

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Ohno Y, Yui M, Aoyagi K et al (2019) Whole-Body MRI: Comparison of its capability for TNM staging of malignant pleural mesothelioma with that of coregistered PET/MRI, Integrated FDG PET/CT, and conventional imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 212:311–319

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Ohno Y, Takeshi Y, Takenaka D, Koyama H, Aoyagi K, Yui M (2020) Comparison of Diagnostic Accuracy for TNM Stage Among Whole-Body MRI and Coregistered PET/MRI Using 1.5-T and 3-T MRI Systems and Integrated PET/CT for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 215:1191–1198

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Ohno Y, Yoshikawa T, Takenaka D et al (2022) Small Cell Lung Cancer Staging: Prospective Comparison of Conventional Staging Tests, FDG PET/CT, Whole-Body MRI, and Coregistered FDG PET/MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol 218:899–908

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Piao Y, Cao C, Xu Y et al (2022) Detection and staging of recurrent or metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma in the era of FDG PET/MR. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 279:353–359. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-021-06779-5

  49. Platzek I, Beuthien-Baumann B, Schramm G et al (2017) FDG PET/MR in initial staging of sarcoma: Initial experience and comparison with conventional imaging. Clin Imaging 42:126–132

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Pujara AC, Raad RA, Ponzo F et al (2016) Standardized uptake values from PET/MRI in metastatic breast cancer: An organ-based comparison with PET/CT. Breast J 22:264–273

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Queiroz MA, Kubik-Huch RA, Hauser N et al (2015) PET/MRI and PET/CT in advanced gynaecological tumours: initial experience and comparison. Eur Radiol 25:2222–2230

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Queiroz MA, Ortega CD, Ferreira FR, Nahas SC, Cerri GG, Buchpiguel CA (2021) Diagnostic accuracy of FDG-PET/MRI versus pelvic MRI and thoracic and abdominal CT for detecting synchronous distant metastases in rectal cancer patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 48:186–195

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Ruhlmann V, Ruhlmann M, Bellendorf A et al (2016) Hybrid imaging for detection of carcinoma of unknown primary: A preliminary comparison trial of whole-body PET/MRI versus PET/CT. Eur J Radiol 85:1941–1947

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Sarabhai T, Schaarschmidt BM, Wetter A et al (2018) Comparison of 18F-FDG PET/MRI and MRI for pre-therapeutic tumor staging of patients with primary cancer of the uterine cervix. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 45:67–76

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Sawicki LM, Grueneisen J, Schaarschmidt BM et al (2016) Evaluation of 18F-FDG PET/MRI, 18F-FDG PET/CT, MRI, and CT in whole-body staging of recurrent breast cancer. Eur J Radiol 85:459–465

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Sawicki LM, Kirchner J, Grueneisen J et al (2018) Comparison of 18F–FDG PET/MRI and MRI alone for whole-body staging and potential impact on therapeutic management of women with suspected recurrent pelvic cancer: a follow-up study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 45:622–629

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Sekine T, de Galiza BF, Kuhn FP et al (2017) PET plus MR versus PET/CT in the initial staging of head and neck cancer, using a trimodality PET/CT plus MR system. Clin Imaging 42:232–239

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Sekine T, de Galiza BF, Sah BR et al (2017) PET/MR Outperforms PET/CT in Suspected Occult Tumors. Clin Nucl Med 42:E88–E95

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Sharkey AR, Sah BR, Withey SJ et al (2021) Initial experience in staging primary oesophageal/gastro-oesophageal cancer with 18F-FDG PET/MRI. Eur J Hybrid Imaging 5:1–3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Steiner A, Narva S, Rinta-Kiikka I, Hietanen S, Hynninen J, Virtanen J (2021) Diagnostic efficiency of whole-body 18F-FDG PET/MRI, MRI alone, and SUV and ADC values in staging of primary uterine cervical cancer. Cancer Imaging 21:1–1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Taneja S, Jena A, Goel R, Sarin R, Kaul S (2014) Simultaneous whole-body 18F-FDG PET-MRI in primary staging of breast cancer: A pilot study. Eur J Radiol 83:2231–2239

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Tsuyoshi H, Tsujikawa T, Yamada S, Okazawa H, Yoshida Y (2020) Diagnostic value of F-18 FDG PET/MRI for staging in patients with ovarian cancer. EJNMMI Res 10:1–4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Tsuyoshi H, Tsujikawa T, Yamada S, Okazawa H, Yoshida Y (2020) Diagnostic value of 18F-FDG PET/MRI for staging in patients with endometrial cancer. Cancer Imaging 20:1–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Tsuyoshi H, Tsujikawa T, Yamada S, Okazawa H, Yoshida Y (2021) Diagnostic value of18f-fdg pet/mri for revised 2018 figo staging in patients with cervical cancer. Diagnostics 11:202

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. Vermersch M, Mulé S, Chalaye J et al (2021) Impact of the18f-fdg-pet/mri on metastatic staging in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: Initial results from 104 patients. J Clin Med 10:4017

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  66. Yoon JH, Lee JM, Chang W et al (2020) Initial M staging of rectal cancer: FDG PET/MRI with a hepatocyte-specific contrast agent versus contrast-enhanced CT. Radiology 294:310–319

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Matthew JP, Joanne EM, Patric MB et al (2021) The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Int J Surg 88:105906. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2021.105906

  68. Sawicki LM, Kirchner J, Grueneisen J et al (2017) 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 45:622–629

    Google Scholar 

  69. Shen G, Hu S, Liu B, Kuang A et al (2016) Diagnostic performance of whole-body PET/MRI for detecting malignancies in cancer patients: a meta-analysis. PLoS One 11:e0154497

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  70. Li J, Zhou H, Zhang X, Song F, Pang X, Wei Z (2020) A two-way comparison of whole-body 18FDG PET-CT and whole-body contrast-enhanced MRI for distant metastasis staging in patients with malignant tumors: a meta-analysis of 13 prospective studies. Ann Palliat Med 9:247–255

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Sacks A, Peller PJ, Surasi DS, Chatburn L, Mercier G, Subramaniam RM (2011) Value of PET/CT in the Management of Liver Metastases, Part 1. AJR Am J Roentgenol 197:W256–W259

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Qu X, Huang X, Yan W, Wu L, Dai K (2012) A meta-analysis of 18FDG-PET–CT, 18FDG-PET, MRI and bone scintigraphy for diagnosis of bone metastases in patients with lung cancer. Eur J Radiol 81:1007–1015

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Ming Y, Wu N, Qian T et al (2020) Progress and Future Trends in PET/CT and PET/MRI Molecular Imaging Approaches for Breast Cancer. Front Oncol 10:1301

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  74. Evangelista L, Cuppari L, Burei M, Zorz A, Caumo F (2019) Head-to-head comparison between 18F-FDG PET/CT and PET/MRI in breast cancer. Clin Transl Imaging 7:99–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Machado Medeiros T, Altmayer S, Watte G et al (2020) 18F-FDG PET/CT and whole-body MRI diagnostic performance in M staging for non–small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Radiol 30:3641–3649

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Czernin J, Benz MR, Allen-Auerbach MS (2010) PET/CT imaging: The incremental value of assessing the glucose metabolic phenotype and the structure of cancers in a single examination. Eur J Radiol 73:470–480

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Detterbeck FC, Falen S, Rivera MP, Halle JS, Socinski MA (2004) Seeking a home for a PET, part 2: Defining the appropriate place for positron emission tomography imaging in the staging of patients with suspected lung cancer. Chest 125:2300–2308

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Dahlsgaard-Wallenius SE, Hildebrandt MG, Johansen A et al (2021) Hybrid PET/MRI in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and lung nodules—a literature review. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 48:584–591

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Whiteford MH, Whiteford HM, Yee LF et al (2000) Usefulness of FDG-PET scan in the assessment of suspected metastatic or recurrent adenocarcinoma of the colon and rectum. Dis Colon Rectum 43:759–767

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Zhang Z, Zhou N, Guo X, Li N, Zhu H, Yang Z (2022) Pretherapeutic Assessment of Pancreatic Cancer: Comparison of FDG PET/CT Plus Delayed PET/MR and Contrast-Enhanced CT/MR. Front Oncol 11:5719

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Crimi F, Valeggia S, Baffoni L et al (2021) [18F]FDG PET/MRI in rectal cancer. Ann Nucl Med 35:281–290

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  82. Kijima S, Sasaki T, Nagata K, Utano K, Lefor AT, Sugimoto H (2014) Preoperative evaluation of colorectal cancer using CT colonography, MRI, and PET/CT. World J Gastroenterol 20:16964

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  83. Tsili AC, Alexiou G, Naka C, Argyropoulou MI (2021) Imaging of colorectal cancer liver metastases using contrast-enhanced US, multidetector CT, MRI, and FDG PET/CT: a meta-analysis. Acta Radiol 62:302–312

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Choi SH, Kim SY, Park SH (2018) Diagnostic performance of CT, gadoxetate disodium-enhanced MRI, and PET/CT for the diagnosis of colorectal liver metastasis: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Mag Reson Imaging 47:1237–1250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Mirshahvalad SA, Hinzpeter R, Kohan A et al (2022) Diagnostic performance of [18F]-FDG PET/MR in evaluating colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 49:4205–4217

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Gassert FG, Rübenthaler J, Cyran CC et al (2021) 18F FDG PET/MRI with hepatocyte-specific contrast agent for M staging of rectal cancer: a primary economic evaluation. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 48:3268–3276

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  87. Pesapane F, Downey K, Rotili A, Cassano E, Koh DM (2020) Imaging diagnosis of metastatic breast cancer. Insights Imaging 11:1–4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Petralia G, Padhani AR, Pricolo P et al (2019) Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging (WB-MRI) in oncology: recommendations and key uses. Radiol Med 124:218–233

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Virarkar M, Viswanathan C, Iyer R et al (2019) The Role of Positron Emission Tomography/Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Gynecological Malignancies. J Comput Assist Tomogr 43:825–834

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Kang S, Kim SK, Chung DC et al (2010) Diagnostic value of 18F-FDG PET for evaluation of paraaortic nodal metastasis in patients with cervical carcinoma: a metaanalysis. J Nucl Med 51:360–367

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Buchbender C, Heusner TA, Lauenstein TC, Bockisch A, Antoch G (2020) Performance of different imaging techniques for detection of para-aortic lymph node metastasis from gynecological malignancies: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gynecol Obstet Invest 85:53–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The authors state that this work has not received any funding.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Joint Department of Medical Imaging, University Medical Imaging Toronto, University Health Network, Sinai Health System, Women’s College Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto General Hospital, 585 University Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, M5G 2N2, Canada

    Seyed Ali Mirshahvalad, Andres Kohan, Ur Metser, Ricarda Hinzpeter, Claudia Ortega, Adam Farag & Patrick Veit-Haibach

Authors
  1. Seyed Ali Mirshahvalad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andres Kohan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ur Metser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ricarda Hinzpeter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Claudia Ortega
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Adam Farag
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Patrick Veit-Haibach
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Seyed Ali Mirshahvalad.

Ethics declarations

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Patrick Veit-Haibach.

Conflict of interest

The authors of this manuscript declare relationships with the following companies: Siemens Healthineers and POINT.

PVH received travel support and IIS grants from Siemens Healthineers in the last 3 years outside of this work. Ur Metser is an advisor for POINT.

Statistics and biometry

One of the authors (SAM) has significant statistical expertise.

Informed consent

Not applicable (meta-analytic study).

Ethical approval

Not applicable (meta-analytic study).

Study subjects or cohorts overlap

None.

Methodology

• Meta-analysis

• systematic review

Additional information

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (PDF 415 KB)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mirshahvalad, S.A., Kohan, A., Metser, U. et al. Diagnostic performance of whole-body [18F]FDG PET/MR in cancer M staging: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Radiol 34, 673–685 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-023-10009-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-023-10009-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation