A look ahead: PET/MR versus PET/CT

  • Gustav K. von Schulthess
  • Heinz-Peter W. Schlemmer
Article

Abstract

Introduction

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.

Objectives

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.

Discussion

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.

Keywords

Integrated imaging Dual modality imaging PET/CT MRI 

References

  1. 1.
    Seo Y, Mari C, Hasegawa BH. Technological development and advances in single-photon emission computed tomography/computed tomography. Semin Nucl Med. 2008;38(3):177–98. May.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hasegawa BH, Gingold EL, Reilly SM, Liew SC, Cann CE. Description of a simultaneous emission-transmission CT system. Proc SPIE. 1990;1231:50–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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
  4. 4.
    Kinahan PE, et al. Attenuation correction for a combined 3D PET/CT scanner. Med Phys. 1998;25:2046–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Burger C, Goerres GW, Schoenes S, Buck A, Lonn AHR, von Schulthess GK. PET attenuation coefficients from CT images: experimental evaluation of the transformation of CT- into PET 511 keV attenuation coefficients. Europ J Nucl Med. 2002;29(7):922–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hany TF, Steinert HC, Goerres GW, Buck A, von Schulthess GK. PET diagnostic accuracy: improvement with in-line PET/CT System: initial results. Radiology. 2002;225:575–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    von Schulthess GK. Cost considerations regarding an integrated CT-PET system. Eur Radiol. 2000;Suppl 3:377–80.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lardinois D, Weder W, Hany TF, Kamel EM, Korom S, Seifert B, et al. Integrated PET/CT imaging improves staging of non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2003;348(25):2500–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Czernin J, Allen-Auerbach M, Schelbert HR. Improvements in cancer staging with PET/CT: literature-based evidence as of September 2006. J Nucl Med. 2007;48(Suppl 1):78S–88S. Jan.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 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
  11. 11.
    Gambhir SS, Czernin J, Schwimmer J, Silverman DH, Coleman RE, Phelps ME. A tabulated summary of the FDG PET literature. J Nucl Med. 2001;42(5 Suppl):1S–93S. May.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Brix G, Lechel U, Glatting G, Ziegler SI, Münzing W, Müller SP, et al. Radiation exposure of patients undergoing whole-body dual-modality 18F-FDG PET/CT examinations. J Nucl Med. 2005;46(4):608–13. Apr.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pichler BJ, Judenhofer MS, Catana C, Walton JH, Kneilling M, Nutt RE, et al. Performance test of an LSO-APD detector in a 7-T MRI scanner for simultaneous PET/MRI. J Nucl Med. 2006;47(4):639–47.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 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
  15. 15.
    Schlemmer HP, Pichler BJ, Schmand M, Burbar Z, Michel C, Ladebeck R, et al. Simultaneous MR/PET imaging of the human brain: a feasibility study. Radiology. 2008;248:1028–35.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Judenhofer MS, Catana C, Swann BK, Siegel SB, Jung WI, Nutt RF, et al. PET/MR images acquired with a compact MR-compatible PET detector in a 7-T magnet. Radiology. 2007;244(3):807–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Judenhofer MS, Wehrl HF, Newport DF, Catana C, Siegel SB, Becker M, et al. Simultaneous PET-MRI: a new approach for functional and morphological imaging. Nat Med. 2008;14(4):459–65. Apr.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Beyer T, Weigert M, Quick HH, Pietrzyk U, Vogt F, Palm C, et al. MR-based attenuation correction for torso-PET/MR imaging: pitfalls in mapping MR to CT data. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2008;35(6):1142–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zaidi H, Montandon ML, Slosman DO. Attenuation compensation in cerebral 3D PET: effect of the attenuation map on absolute and relative quantitation. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2004;31(1):52–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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. 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
  22. 22.
    Antoch G, Vogt FM, Freudenberg LS, Nazaradeh F, Goehde SC, Barkhausen J, et al. Whole-body dual-modality PET/CT and whole-body MRI for tumor staging in oncology. JAMA. 2003;290(24):3199–206. Dec 24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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. 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. 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

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gustav K. von Schulthess
    • 1
  • Heinz-Peter W. Schlemmer
    • 2
  1. 1.Nuclear Medicine, Department of Medical RadiologyUniversity HospitalZurichSwitzerland
  2. 2.Department of RadiologyUniversity HospitalTuebingenGermany

Personalised recommendations