Skip to main content


Log in

Whole-Body [18F]FDG-PET/MRI vs. [18F]FDG-PET/CT in Malignant Melanoma

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Molecular Imaging and Biology Aims and scope Submit manuscript



To assess the diagnostic performance of simultaneous whole-body 2-deoxy-2-[18F]fluoro-D-glucose ([18F]FDG) positron emission tomography (PET)/magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) compared to [18F]FDG PET/x-ray computed tomography (CT) for detection of distant metastatic disease in patients with malignant melanoma.


We included patients with malignant melanoma who underwent a single injection [18F]FDG dual-imaging protocol that included whole-body PET/CT and subsequent whole-body PET/MRI for staging or restaging purposes in a prospective setting. Images from both modalities were analyzed by two rater teams for the presence of metastatic lesions. PET/CT–PET/MRI overall agreement as well as region-based accuracies, sensitivities (Se), and specificities (Sp) were computed.


Between July 2014 and December 2018, 22 patients were enrolled. Interrater agreement and overall accuracy (consensus reading) were 78.8 % (95 % CI 71–84.9) and 96.1 % (95 % CI 92.3–98) for PET/MRI and 78 % (70.2–84.3) and 97.4 % (95 % CI 93.7–98.9) for PET/CT, respectively (P = 0.42). PET/MRI reached a region-based Se of 89.1 % (95 % CI 79.4–94.5) and a Sp of 100 %, whereas PET/CT showed a region-based Se of 92.7 % (95 % CI 84–96.9) and a Sp of 100 % for the detection of metastatic disease in malignant melanoma.


Whole-body [18F]FDG-PET/MRI appears to be comparable to [18F]FDG-PET/CT for lesion detection in patients with malignant melanoma.

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

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1.
Fig. 2.

Similar content being viewed by others


  1. Tas F (2012) Metastatic behavior in melanoma: timing, pattern, survival, and influencing factors. J Oncol 2012:647684

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Meier F, Will S, Ellwanger U et al (2002) Metastatic pathways and time courses in the orderly progression of cutaneous melanoma. Br J Dermatol 147:62–70

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Gershenwald JE, Scolyer RA (2018) Ann Surg Oncol 25:2105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Pflugfelder A, Kochs C, Blum A et al (2013) Malignant melanoma S3-guideline “diagnosis, therapy and follow-up of melanoma”. J Dtsch Dermatol Ges 11:1–116

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Wong ANM, McArthur GA, Hofman MS, Hicks RJ (2017) The advantages and challenges of using FDG PET/CT for response assessment in melanoma in the era of targeted agents and immunotherapy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 44:67–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Boellaard R, Delgado-Bolton R, Oyen WJ et al (2015) FDG PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumor imaging: version 2.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 42:328–354

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. 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  Google Scholar 

  8. Giraudo C, Raderer M, Karanikas G et al (2016) 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 5:163–169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Berzaczy D, Giraudo C, Haug AR et al (2017) Whole-body 68Ga-DOTANOC PET/MRI Versus68Ga-DOTANOC PET/CT in patients with neuroendocrine tumors: a prospective study in 28 patients. Clin Nucl Med 42:669–674

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Jeong JH, Cho IH, Kong EJ et al (2014) Evaluation of Dixon sequence on hybrid PET/MR compared with contrast-enhanced PET/CT for PET-positive lesions. Nucl Med Mol Imaging 48:26–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Sekine T, Barbosa FG, Sah BR et al (2017) PET/MR outperforms PET/CT in suspected occult tumors. Clin Nucl Med 42:e88–e95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Afaq A, Fraioli F, Sidhu H et al (2017) Comparison of PET/MRI with PET/CT in the evaluation of disease status in lymphoma. Clin Nucl Med 42:e1–e7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Souvatzoglou M, Eiber M, Takei T et al (2013) Comparison of integrated whole-body [11C]choline PET/MR with PET/CT in patients with prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 40:1486–1499

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. 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  Google Scholar 

  15. Rauscher I, Eiber M, Fürst S et al (2014) PET/MR imaging in the detection and characterization of pulmonary lesions: technical and diagnostic evaluation in comparison to PET/CT. J Nucl Med 55:724–729

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Kulemann V, Schima W, Tamandl D et al (2011) Preoperative detection of colorectal liver metastases in fatty liver: MDCT or MRI? Eur J Radiol 79:e1–e6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Mayerhoefer ME, Ba-Salamah A, Weber M et al (2013) Gadoxetate-enhanced versus diffusion-weighted MRI for fused Ga-68-DOTANOC PET/MRI in patients with neuroendocrine tumors of the upper abdomen. Eur Radiol 23:1978–1985

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Melsaether AN, Raad RA, Pujara AC et al (2016) Comparison of whole-body (18)F FDG PET/MR imaging and whole-body 18F FDG PET/CT in terms of lesion detection and radiation dose in patients with breast cancer. Radiology 281:193–202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Eiber M, Takei T, Souvatzoglou M et al (2014) Performance of whole-body integrated 18F-FDG PET/MR in comparison to PET/CT for evaluation of malignant bone lesions. J Nucl Med 55:191–197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Muehe AM, Theruvath AJ, Lai L, Aghighi M, Quon A, Holdsworth SJ, Wang J, Luna-Fineman S, Marina N, Advani R, Rosenberg J, Daldrup-Link HE (2018) How to provide gadolinium-free PET/MR cancer staging of children and young adults in less than 1 h: the Stanford Approach. Mol Imaging Biol 20:324–335

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references


The study was supported by the Jubilaeumsfonds of the Oesterreichische Nationalbank (OeNB) project number 16888.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dominik Berzaczy.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

MEM has received speaker honoraria and research support from Siemens Healthineers, as well as speaker honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

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

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:

Key words