Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of 18F-FDG-PET/CT and 18F-FDG-PET/MR imaging in oncology: a systematic review

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Annals of Nuclear Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

The aim of this study was to systematically review the literature to evaluate the clinical performance of integrated 18F-FDG PET/MR as compared with 18F-FDG PET/CT in oncologic imaging.

Methods

The literature was searched using MEDLINE and EMBASE via OVID. Studies comparing the diagnostic accuracy of integrated 18F-FDG PET/MR and 18F-FDG PET/CT in the diagnosis, staging/restaging, assessment of treatment response, or evaluation of metastasis in patients with suspected or diagnosed cancers were deemed eligible for inclusion. Risk of bias and applicability concerns were assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool.

Results

Twenty studies met the inclusion criteria. The overall quality of the studies was rated favorably with bias or applicability concerns in a few studies. Our review suggests that 18F-FDG PET/MR performs comparably to 18F-FDG PET/CT in the detection of local lymph node and distant metastases and superiorly in determining the local extent of tumor. SUV obtained from 18F-FDG PET/MR correlated highly with those obtained from 18F-FDG PET/CT.

Conclusions

Based on early evidence, 18F-FDG PET/MR is comparable to 18F-FDG PET/CT in the clinical scenarios examined in this review. The potential for interchangeability of 18F-FDG PET/MR with 18F-FDG PET/CT will vary by indication and the body site that is being imaged, with PET scanners integrated with MRI predicted to provide greater detail in the evaluation of local tumor extent, where 18F-FDG PET/CT can be limited.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bar-Shalom R, Yefremov N, Guralnik L, Gaitini D, Frenkel A, Kuten A, et al. Clinical performance of PET/CT in evaluation of cancer: additional value for diagnostic imaging and patient management. J Nucl Med. 2003;44:1200–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Beyer T, Townsend DW, Brun T, Kinahan PE, Charron M, Roddy R, et al. A combined PET/CT scanner for clinical oncology. J Nucl Med. 2000;41:1369–79.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Huang B, Law MW, Khong PL. Whole-body PET/CT scanning: estimation of radiation dose and cancer risk. Radiology. 2009;251:166–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Czernin J, Ta L, Herrmann K. Does PET/MR imaging improve cancer assessments? Literature evidence from more than 900 patients. J Nucl Med. 2014;55:59S–62S.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Wagenknecht G, Kaiser HJ, Mottaghy FM, Herzog H. MRI for attenuation correction in PET: methods and challenges. MAGMA. 2013;26:99–113.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Grueneisen J, Nagarajah J, Buchbender C, Hoffmann O, Schaarschmidt BM, Poeppel T, et al. Positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance imaging for local tumor staging in patients with primary breast cancer: a comparison with positron emission tomography/computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging. Invest Radiol. 2015;50:505–13.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Catalano OA, Rosen BR, Sahani DV, Hahn PF, Guimaraes AR, Vangel MG, et al. Clinical impact of PET/MR imaging in patients with cancer undergoing same-day PET/CT: initial experience in 134 patients—a hypothesis-generating exploratory study. Radiology. 2013;269:857–69.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Heusch P, Nensa F, Schaarschmidt B, Sivanesapillai R, Beiderwellen K, Gomez B, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of whole-body PET/MRI and whole-body PET/CT for TNM staging in oncology. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015;42:42–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Beiderwellen K, Gomez B, Buchbender C, Hartung V, Poeppel TD, Nensa F, et al. Depiction and characterization of liver lesions in whole body (18F)-FDG PET/MRI. Eur J Radiol. 2013;82:e669–e675.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Beiderwellen K, Huebner M, Heusch P, Grueneisen J, Ruhlmann V, Nensa F, et al. Whole-body (18F)FDG PET/MRI vs. PET/CT in the assessment of bone lesions in oncological patients: initial results. Eur Radiol. 2014;24:2023–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Heusch P, Buchbender C, Kohler J, Nensa F, Gauler T, Gomez B, et al. Thoracic staging in lung cancer: prospective comparison of 18F-FDG PET/MR imaging and 18F-FDG PET/CT. J Nucl Med. 2014;55:373–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Fraioli F, Screaton NJ, Janes SM, Win T, Menezes L, Kayani I, et al. Non-small-cell lung cancer resectability: diagnostic value of PET/MR. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015;42:49–55.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Tian J, Fu L, Yin D, Zhang J, Chen Y, An N, et al. Does the novel integrated PET/MRI offer the same diagnostic performance as PET/CT for oncological indications? PLoS One. 2014;9:e90844.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Beiderwellen K, Geraldo L, Ruhlmann V, Heusch P, Gomez B, Nensa F, et al. Accuracy of [18F]FDG PET/MRI for the detection of liver metastases. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0137285.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Giraudo C, Raderer M, Karanikas G, Weber M, Kiesewetter B, Dolak W, et al. 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. Invest Radiol. 2016;51:163–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Sawicki LM, Grueneisen J, Schaarschmidt BM, Buchbender C, Nagarajah J, Umutlu L, et al. Evaluation of 18F-FDG PET/MRI, 18F-FDG PET/CT, MRI, and CT in whole-body staging of recurrent breast cancer. Eur J Radiol. 2016;85:459–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Lee G, Hoseok I, Kim SJ, Jeong YJ, Kim IJ, Pak K, et al. Clinical implication of PET/MR imaging in preoperative esophageal cancer staging: comparison with PET/CT, endoscopic ultrasonography, and CT. J Nucl Med. 2014;55:1242–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Paspulati RM, Partovi S, Herrmann KA, Krishnamurthi S, Delaney CP, Nguyen NC. Comparison of hybrid FDG PET/MRI compared with PET/CT in colorectal cancer staging and restaging: a pilot study. Abdom Imaging. 2015;40:1415–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Hamilton Health Sciences and St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton, 711 Concession Street, Hamilton, ON, L8V 1C3, Canada

    Amit Singnurkar

  2. Program in Evidence-Based Care, Cancer Care Ontario, Juravinski Hospital and Cancer Centre, G Wing, 2nd Floor, 711 Concession Street, Hamilton, ON, L8V 1C3, Canada

    Raymond Poon

  3. Joint Department of Medical Imaging, University Health Network, Mount Sinai Hospital and Women’s College Hospital, University of Toronto, 610 University Ave., Suite 3-960, Toronto, ON, M5G 2M9, Canada

    Ur Metser

Authors
  1. Amit Singnurkar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Raymond Poon
    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

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Raymond Poon.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

We wish to confirm that there are no known conflicts of interest associated with this publication and there has been no significant financial support for this work that could have influenced its outcome.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 17 KB)

Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 84 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Singnurkar, A., Poon, R. & Metser, U. Comparison of 18F-FDG-PET/CT and 18F-FDG-PET/MR imaging in oncology: a systematic review. Ann Nucl Med 31, 366–378 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12149-017-1164-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12149-017-1164-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation