A look ahead: PET/MR versus PET/CT
- First Online:
Integration of positron emission tomography (PET) and magnetic resonance (MR) has become a topic of increasing interest to the imaging community over the past two years.
In this text, the authors attempt to distinguish facts from fiction concerning such integrated systems. Analysis of existing information of combined imaging on existing brain PET/MR systems and imaging experience with PET-computed tomography (CT) is reviewed. Various types of system integration of PET and MR are discussed with completely independent systems on one hand and completely integrated systems with the possibility of simultaneous data acquisition on the other hand. Furthermore, it is discussed, what simultaneous data acquisition with nuclear imaging systems combined with MR or CT really means, as technical simultaneity may not be relevant in light of the pharmacokinetics of the nuclear tracers used.
The authors conclude that combining PET/MR is an interesting research endeavor with uncertain outcome. They argue that, while completely simultaneous brain applications are of research interest immediately, clinical applications do not currently warrant the construction of fully integrated systems. Systems adjacent to each other, where imaging tables are linked with a patient “shuttle” thereby requiring only patient translation but no repositioning, may be a good start to assess the value of integrated PET/MR.
KeywordsIntegrated imaging Dual modality imaging PET/CT MRI
- 3.Beyer T, Townsend DW, Brun T, Kinahan PE, Charron M, Roddy R, et al. A combined PET/CT scanner for clinical oncology. J Nuc Med. 2000;41:1369–79.Google Scholar
- 7.von Schulthess GK. Cost considerations regarding an integrated CT-PET system. Eur Radiol. 2000;Suppl 3:377–80.Google Scholar
- 10.Hillner BE, Siegel BA, Liu D, Shields AF, Gareen IF, Hanna L, et al. Impact of positron emission tomography/computed tomography and positron emission tomography (PET) alone on expected management of patients with cancer: initial results from the National Oncologic PET Registry. Clin Oncol. 2008;26(13):2155–61. May 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 14.Schlemmer HP, Pichler B, Wienhard K, et al. Simultaneous MR/PET for Brain Imaging: first Patient Scans. J Nucl Med. 2007;48(Suppl):152.Google Scholar
- 20.Hofmann M, Steinke F, Scheel V, Charpiat G, Farquhar J, Aschoff P, et al. MR-based attenuation correction for PET/MR: a novel approach combining pattern recognition and atlas registration. J Nucl Med. 2008; (in press).Google Scholar
- 21.Carroll TJ, Teneggi V, Jobin M, Squassante L, Treyer V, Hany TF, et al. Absolute quantification of cerebral blood flow with magnetic resonance, reproducibility of the method, and comparison with H2(15)O positron emission tomography. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 2002;22(9):1149–56. Sep.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 23.Muller-Horvat C, Radny P, Eigentler TK, Schafer J, Pfannenberg C, Horger M, et al. Prospective comparison of the impact on treatment decisions of whole-body magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography in patients with metastatic malignant melanoma. Eur J Cancer. 2006;42(3):342–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 24.Pfannenberg AC, Aschoff P, Eschmann SM, Plathow C, Eigentler TK, Garbe C, et al. Prospective comparison of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography and whole-body magnetic resonance imaging in staging of advanced malignant melanoma. Eur J Cancer. 2007;43(3):557–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 25.Bischof Delaloye A, Carrió I, Cuocolo A, Knapp W, Gourtsoyiannis N, McCall I, et al. White paper of the European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM) and the European Society of Radiology (ESR) on multimodality imaging. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2007;34(8):1147–51. Aug.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar