Imaging of differentiated thyroid carcinoma: 124I-PET/MRI may not be superior to 124I-PET/CT

  • A. VrachimisEmail author
  • M. Weckesser
  • M. Schäfers
  • L. Stegger
Letter to the Editor

Dear Sir,

We read with great interest the paper by Binse et al. published in the European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging entitled “Imaging with 124I in differentiated thyroid carcinoma: is PET/MRI superior to PET/CT?” [1], which found PET/MRI of the neck to be superior to PET/CT in detecting iodine-positive lesions in patients with differentiated thyroid carcinoma (DTC). Since hybrid PET/MRI systems have become available, the scientific community strives to find key applications for these innovative devices. Thus, we are grateful to the authors for this interesting study.

The major finding of the study was that PET/MRI detected significantly more metastases and thyroid remnants than PET/CT in a lesion-based analysis, but not in a patient-based analysis. Interestingly, this advantage was realized by the better performance of the PET component of the PET/MRI system rather than by a better performance of MRI versus low-dose CT. The authors attributed the higher PET...


Differentiate Thyroid Carcinoma Thyroid Remnant Elevated Tumor Marker Siemens Biograph Differentiate Thyroid Carcinoma Patient 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The author(s) declare that they have no competing interests.


  1. 1.
    Binse I, Poeppel TD, Ruhlmann M, Gomez B, Umutlu L, Bockisch A, et al. Imaging with 124I in differentiated thyroid carcinoma: is PET/MRI superior to PET/CT? Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015. doi: 10.1007/s00259-015-3288-y.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Delso G, Furst S, Jakoby B, Ladebeck R, Ganter C, Nekolla SG, et al. Performance measurements of the Siemens mMR integrated whole-body PET/MR scanner. J Nucl Med. 2011;52:1914–22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    N. E. M. Association. NEMA standards publication NU 2–2012: performance measurements of positron emission tomographs. Rosslyn, VA: National Electrical Manufacturers Association; 2012.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wiesmuller M, Quick HH, Navalpakkam B, Lell MM, Uder M, Ritt P, 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. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;40:12–21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Vrachimis A, Burg MC, Wenning C, Allkemper T, Weckesser M, Schafers M, et al. F]FDG PET/CT outperforms [F]FDG PET/MRI in differentiated thyroid cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016;43:212–20.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Blodgett TM, Mehta AS, Mehta AS, Laymon CM, Carney J, Townsend DW. PET/CT artifacts. Clin Imaging. 2011;35:49–63.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bockisch A, Beyer T, Antoch G, Freudenberg LS, Kuhl H, Debatin JF, et al. Positron emission tomography/computed tomography—imaging protocols, artifacts, and pitfalls. Mol Imaging Biol. 2004;6:188–99.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Vrachimis
    • 1
    Email author
  • M. Weckesser
    • 1
  • M. Schäfers
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • L. Stegger
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Nuclear MedicineUniversity Hospital MünsterMünsterGermany
  2. 2.European Institute for Molecular Imaging-EIMIUniversity of MünsterMünsterGermany
  3. 3.DFG Cluster of Excellence EXC 1003 ‘Cells in Motion’University of MünsterMünsterGermany

Personalised recommendations