0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Original Contribution |

Whole-Body Dual-Modality PET/CT and Whole-Body MRI for Tumor Staging in Oncology FREE

Gerald Antoch, MD; Florian M. Vogt, MD; Lutz S. Freudenberg, MD; Fridun Nazaradeh, MD; Susanne C. Goehde, MD; Jörg Barkhausen, MD; Gerlinde Dahmen, MSc; Andreas Bockisch, MD, PhD; Jörg F. Debatin, MD, MBA; Stefan G. Ruehm, MD
[+] Author Affiliations

Author Affiliations: Departments of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology (Drs Antoch, Vogt, Nazaradeh, Goehde, Barkhausen, Debatin, and Ruehm) and Nuclear Medicine (Drs Freudenberg and Bockisch), University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany; and Institute of Medical Biometry and Statistics, University at Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany (Ms Dahmen).


JAMA. 2003;290(24):3199-3206. doi:10.1001/jama.290.24.3199.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Context Deciding on the appropriate therapy for patients with malignant diseases mandates accurate tumor staging with whole-body coverage. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and a combined modality including positron emission tomography (PET) and computed tomography (CT) provide whole-body tumor staging in a single session.

Objective To determine the staging accuracies of both whole-body PET/CT and whole-body MRI for different malignant diseases.

Design, Setting, and Patients Prospective, blinded, investigator-initiated study of 98 patients (mean age, 58 years; range, 27-94 years) with various oncological diseases who underwent back-to-back whole-body glucose analog [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose–PET/CT and whole-body MRI for tumor staging. The study was conducted at a university hospital from December 2001 through October 2002 and had a mean follow-up of 273 days (range, 75-515 days). The images were evaluated by 2 different, blinded reader teams. The diagnostic accuracies of the 2 imaging procedures were compared.

Main Outcome Measures Correct classification of the primary tumor, regional lymph nodes, and distant metastasis (overall TNM stage) using whole-body PET/CT and whole-body MRI. Secondary outcome measures were accurate assessment of T-stage, N-stage, and M-stage by the 2 imaging procedures.

Results Of 98 patients, the overall TNM stage was correctly determined in 75 with PET/CT (77%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 67%-85%) and in 53 with MRI (54%; 95% CI, 44%-64%) (P<.001). Compared with MRI, PET/CT had a direct impact on patient management in 12 patients. Results from MRI changed the therapy regimen in 2 patients compared with PET/CT. Separate assessment of T-stage (with pathological verification) in 46 patients revealed PET/CT to be accurate in 37 (80%; 95% CI, 66%-91%) and MRI to be accurate in 24 (52%; 95% CI, 37%-67%) (P<.001). Of 98 patients, N-stage was correctly determined in 91 patients with PET/CT (93%; 95% CI, 86%-97%) and in 77 patients with MRI (79%; 95% CI, 69%-86%) (P = .001). Both imaging procedures showed a similar performance in detecting distant metastases.

Conclusions The feasibility and diagnostic accuracy of the whole-body staging strategies of PET/CT and MRI are established. Superior performance in overall TNM staging suggests the use of [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose–PET/CT as a possible first-line modality for whole-body tumor staging.

Figures in this Article

In malignant diseases, therapeutic options as well as patients' prognoses strongly depend on the tumor stage.1 Thus, accurate tumor staging encompassing the entire body is of essential importance. Based on its high spatial resolution and soft tissue contrast, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) seems well suited for tumor staging. Its advantages over computed tomography (CT) and other imaging procedures have been determined for detection of parenchymal and osseous lesions.24 However, lengthy acquisition times in combination with limits of contrast usage have required several separate imaging sessions for whole-body coverage using MRI. Advances in scanner technology and the introduction of moving patient platforms with integrated surface-coil technology have recently enabled whole-body MRI within a single session.5,6

In contrast to MRI, which is mainly focused on the assessment of morphological characteristics of tissue, glucose analog [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose–positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) provides functional information on tumor metabolism. The functional data available in whole-body scans complement morphological imaging for staging different malignancies.79 The limitations of PET, which are associated with poor anatomic information, have recently been overcome with the introduction of dual-modality PET/CT imaging. The dual-modality approach provides accurately fused functional PET and morphological CT data in a single examination.10 Initial studies evaluating this new imaging tool report promising results in staging oncological diseases when compared with PET alone and CT alone.1114

The aim of this study was to determine the staging accuracies of whole-body FDG-PET/CT and whole-body MRI for different malignant diseases and to compare these 2 new imaging tools. Histological and clinical follow-up served as the standards of reference.

Patients

From December 2001 through October 2002, 115 patients with different histologically proven malignancies were referred for tumor staging with whole-body FDG-PET/CT and whole-body MRI. Data collection was performed prospectively in consecutive patients. PET/CT and MRI were performed within a 48-hour time interval. Seventeen patients fulfilled 1 of the previously defined exclusion criteria and could not be included in the study; 8 patients had a history of severe allergic reactions to intravenous contrast agents and 9 patients had contraindications for MRI such as pacemakers and other metallic implants as well as claustrophobia. The study was performed in full accordance with guidelines issued by the university hospital institutional review board. Written informed consent was obtained from all patients prior to performing the imaging procedures.

PET/CT Imaging

Dual-modality PET/CT imaging was performed using a biograph (Siemens Medical Solutions, Hoffman Estates, Ill). The system provides separate CT and PET data sets, which can be accurately fused on a computer workstation.

Whole-body CT (130 mA, 130 kV, 5-mm sections, 8-mm table feed, 2.4-mm incremental reconstruction) covered a region ranging from the head to the upper thighs. A dose of 140 mL of an iodinated contrast agent (Xenetix 300, Guerbet GmbH, Sulzbach, Germany) was administered intravenously and small bowel distension was ensured by administration of 1000 mL of glucose-free barium (1.5 g of barium sulfate/100 mL; Micropaque CT, Guerbet GmbH, Sulzbach, Germany) according to a standardized protocol.15 A limited breath-hold technique was used to avoid motion-induced artifacts in the area of the diaphragm.16

The PET component of the combined imaging system has an axial field of view of 15.5 cm (per bed position) with an in-plane spatial resolution of 4.6 mm. PET images were acquired 60 minutes following the administration of 350 MBq of FDG covering the same field of view as with CT. The acquisition time of PET was adapted according to the patients' weight. The time was set to 3 minutes for patients weighing up to 65 kg; to 4 minutes for patients weighing 65 to 85 kg; and to 5 minutes for patients weighing more than 85 kg. Images were scatter corrected and iteratively reconstructed. Image reconstruction was performed with and without PET attenuation correction. PET attenuation correction was based on the CT data. Before the injection of the radioactive tracer, a blood sample was taken to ensure blood glucose levels were within the normal range.

Magnetic Resonance Imaging

The MRI was performed on a 1.5-T Sonata System (Siemens Medical Solutions, Erlangen, Germany) using a rolling table platform (Body SURF, MR-Innovation, Essen, Germany).17 The axial scanning range was set to cover a field of view from head to thigh and hence corresponded well to the region examined with PET/CT. First, the chest and abdomen were scanned with noncontrast-enhanced T1-weighted (repetition time of 124 ms and echo time of 1.8 ms) and T2-weighted sequences (repetition time of 1200 ms and echo time of 60 ms) using a section width of 7 mm. Subsequently, a paramagnetic contrast agent (Magnevist, Schering, Germany) was administered intravenously at 3 mL/s with a dose of 0.2 mmol/kg. Commencing 12 seconds after contrast application, 7 successive contrast-enhanced 3-dimensional data sets (repetition time of 3.0 ms and echo time of 1.2 ms, flip angle of 12°) were acquired in the following order: abdomen (arterial phase), chest, abdomen (portal phase), pelvis, thighs, head, and abdomen (late venous phase).

Image Evaluation

PET/CT images were evaluated by a radiologist and a nuclear medicine physician (G.A. and L.S.F.), while MRI was read by 2 radiologists (F.M.V. and S.G.R.), who achieved consensus. The evaluating physicians were blinded to the results of the other imaging procedure. Both reader teams were supplied with the same clinical information about each patient.

Assessment of the primary tumor, of lymph node metastases, and distant metastases with PET/CT was based on qualitative and quantitative analyses. PET/CT data were evaluated qualitatively for regions of focally increased glucose metabolism and quantitatively by maximal standardized uptake values. Glucose uptake above levels of the surrounding tissue on qualitative analysis and a standardized uptake value higher than 2.5 indicated malignancy.18,19 Lymph nodes were graded as malignant or benign based on these functional criteria, independent of their size. PET/CT images were assessed with and without attenuation correction of the PET data.

Determination of malignancy on MRI was based on assessment of tumor morphological characteristics as well as the pattern of contrast enhancement. Lymph nodes were characterized to harbor malignancy based on their size. Region-specific size criteria were applied when assessing lymph nodes for malignancy. Determination of lymph node size was based on measurement of the small axis diameter. Region-specific cut-off values were defined according to previous studies.2023 Central necrosis was considered a sign of malignant tumor spread independent of lymph node size.

Evaluation of malignant diseases was performed according to the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging classification.1 The 2 imaging modalities were compared for accurate assessment of the overall primary tumor, regional lymph nodes, and distant metastasis (TNM) stage. Correct assessment of the T-stage was evaluated separately. The ability of the 2 imaging procedures to differentiate between N-positive and M-positive and N-negative and M-negative cases was assessed. The number of distant metastases was determined and recorded on an organ-to-organ basis.

Standard of Reference

Both histology and clinical-radiological follow-up served as standards of reference. Malignant disease was confirmed by histopathological verification in all patients. Tumor resection with pathological T-stage verification was performed in 46 patients; comparison of PET/CT and MRI for accurate assessment of T-stage was limited to these patients. Pathological N-stage verification by complete lymph node sampling was available in 43 patients, while M-stage was pathologically verified in 14 patients. In patients without histopathological N-stage or M-stage verification, clinical follow-up served as the standard of reference for N and M stages. The mean clinical follow-up time for all patients was 273 days (range, 75-515 days). The follow-up examination comprised all clinical information available after performance of the 2 imaging procedures, including clinical examinations, laboratory tests, radiological follow-up examinations (CT, MRI, and/or PET/CT), as well as histopathology performed later. The data of the reference standard were collected by a physician unaware of the results of the 2 imaging procedures.

Statistical Analysis

The primary end point of the study was the correct classification of the TNM tumor stage using whole-body PET/CT and whole-body MRI. The study was designed to detect a difference in proportions of 0.15 (0.9 for PET/CT and 0.75 for MRI) with a proportion of discordant pairs of 0.3. To identify such assumed proportions with a power of 0.8 and a significance level of .05 using a 2-sided McNemar test, the study required a minimum of 98 patients.

Secondary end-point differences in diagnostic performance between the 2 imaging procedures were tested for significance by the McNemar test (exact) with a significance level of .05. Sensitivities, specificities, negative predictive values, positive predictive values, and accuracies (with exact 95% confidence intervals [CIs]) for both modalities were determined for detection of metastases to lymph nodes as well as for distant metastases. Statistical analyses were performed with StatXact (Version 5.0, CYTEL Software Corp, Cambridge, Mass) and SAS statistical software (Version 8.2, SAS Institute Inc, Cary, NC).

Patients and Imaging Procedures

Ninety-eight patients with a mean age of 58 years (range, 27-94 years) were included in the study. Sixty-three of the patients were male and 35 were female. Eighty-two of these patients were referred for primary tumor staging, while 16 patients underwent staging for suspected tumor recurrence. The malignant diseases included bronchial carcinomas (n = 29), cancers of unknown primary site (n = 12), head and neck tumors (n = 13), melanomas of the uvea (n = 13), genitourinary tumors (n = 8), tumors of the gastrointestinal tract (n = 6), thyroid tumors (n = 6), pleural mesotheliomas (n = 6), liver tumors (n = 3), and bone tumors (n = 2). Table 1 shows the distribution of the severity of the diseases based on tumor histological evaluation and clinical follow-up.

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Distribution of Severity of Diseases*

Both imaging procedures were performed without adverse effects in all patients. Examination times amounted to a mean of 26 minutes (20-34 minutes) for MRI acquisition and 27 minutes (22-39 minutes) for acquisition of PET/CT.

T-Stage

PET/CT correctly characterized tumor stage in 37 (80%; 95% CI, 66%-91%) of 46 patients. T-stage was overstaged in 4 patients and understaged in 5 patients. Magnetic resonance imaging was found to be accurate in 24 (52%; 95% CI, 37%-67%) of 46 patients. Six patients were overstaged and 16 patients were understaged (Figure 1). Differences between the 2 imaging modalities were statistically significant (P<.001).

Figure 1. A 56-Year-Old Man With Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer of the Right Upper Pulmonary Lobe
Graphic Jump Location
On magnetic resonance imaging, tumor size was underestimated as T1 (arrow in panel A) and differentiation of viable tumor from surrounding atelectasis proved difficult. B, The positron emission tomographic/computed tomographic data set visualized viable tumor tissue characterizing the tumor as T2, which was later verified on histopathological imaging. Tumor size can be accurately delineated on a positron emission tomographic/computed tomographic image by increased glucose metabolism (color coded in panel B). Glucose metabolism decreases in intensity from the tumor center (white) to the tumor periphery (blue).
N-Stage

Regional lymph node involvement was correctly characterized as N-positive or N-negative with PET/CT in 91 (93%; 95% CI, 86%-97%) of 98 patients. N-stage was overstaged (false-positive) in 5 patients and understaged (false-negative) in 2 patients. Analysis of the MRI data permitted correct N-staging in 77 (79%; 95% CI, 69%-86%) of 98 patients. Thirteen patients were overstaged, while 8 patients were understaged (Figure 2). Accuracy differences between whole-body PET/CT and MRI could be detected (P = .001). Table 2 summarizes sensitivities, specificities, positive predictive values, negative predictive values, and accuracies for N-staging.

Figure 2. A 48-Year-Old Woman With Oropharyngeal Carcinoma
Graphic Jump Location
A normal-size lymph node in the left cervical region was not suspected to harbor malignancy on magnetic resonance image (arrow in panel A). The positron emission tomographic/computed tomographic scan demonstrated focally increased glucose metabolism in this lymph node (focal hot spot and arrow in panel B) and malignant disease was later verified by histopathology.
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. N-Stage Assessment With PET/CT and MRI*
M-Stage

PET/CT accurately differentiated between M0 and M1 disease in 92 (94%; 95% CI, 87%-98%) of 98 patients. Metastases were overstaged in 3 patients and understaged in 3 patients. Magnetic resonance imaging correctly staged M-disease in 91 (93%; 95% CI, 86%-97%) of 98 patients, while distant metastases were overstaged in 3 and understaged in 4 patients (accuracy difference: P>.99). PET/CT proved more reliable in the detection of pulmonary metastases by revealing 170 lesions in 25 patients (true-positives) compared with only 139 lesions seen in 23 patients with MRI. However, MRI was more accurate in evaluating the liver and bones for the presence of metastases. Thus, MRI identified 132 liver metastases in 13 patients (true-positives) compared with only 117 liver lesions in 12 patients detected with PET/CT. Eighty bone metastases were detected with MRI in 11 patients (true-positives), while PET/CT revealed 75 lesions in 8 patients (Figure 3). According to the standard of reference, 20 patients had distant metastases to more than 1 organ. Sensitivities, specificities positive predictive values, negative predictive values, and accuracies of MRI and PET/CT for M-staging are shown in Table 3. Correlation of imaging results for M-staging with the standard of reference are shown in Table 4.

Figure 3. A 73-Year-Old Man With Osseous Metastasis From Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer of the Left Upper Pulmonary Lobe
Graphic Jump Location
Magnetic resonance imaging demonstrated a contrast enhancing lesion in the 12th rib on the right side (arrow in panel A), diagnosed as an osseous metastasis. On the positron emission tomographic/computed tomographic scan, the lesion was not detected due to normal appearance of osseous structures on computed tomography without an increase in glucose metabolism (arrow in panel B). Homogeneous color coding indicates physiological tracer distribution in panel B.
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 3. Assessment of M-Stage and Distant Metastases to Different Organs With PET/CT and MRI
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 4. Correlation Imaging Results for M-Staging With the Standard of Reference*
Overall American AJCC Staging and Impact on Patient Management

Of 98 patients, TNM was correctly determined by PET/CT in 75 (77%; 95% CI, 67%-85%) and by whole-body MRI in 53 (54%; 95% CI, 44%-64%). Accuracy differences between whole-body PET/CT and MRI were statistically significant (P<.001). Malignant disease was overstaged in 11 and understaged in 12 patients with PET/CT. Malignant disease was overstaged in 19 patients by MRI and understaged in 26 patients. The number of false staging results for lung cancer was 5 with PET/CT and 10 with MRI; carcinoma of unknown primary site, 2 and 4; head and neck tumors, 6 and 9; melanoma of the uvea, 5 and 10; genitourinary tumors, 2 and 3; gastrointestinal tract, 0 and 3; thyroid gland, 1 and 2; pleura, 1 and 2; and liver, 1 and 2. Compared with MRI, PET/CT had a direct impact on patient management in 12 patients. Patient management was altered from curative to palliative in 4 patients; palliative to curative in 5; curative to neoadjuvant in 1; and extended to limited surgery in 2. In 2 patients, whole-body MRI corrected the tumor stage compared with PET/CT, changing these patients' management from curative to palliative and palliative to curative.

This study highlights the potential associated with the emergence of single-examination whole-body diagnostic imaging strategies. The feasibility and diagnostic accuracy of whole-body dual-modality PET/CT and whole-body MRI has been established. They replace the classic multimodality, multiexamination strategies inherent to most established staging protocols. Reflecting the more precise definition of the T-stage and N-stage status, staging of malignancies was considerably more accurate when based on whole-body PET/CT imaging compared with whole-body MRI. Based on our data, FDG-PET/CT can be recommended as a first-line modality for whole-body tumor staging.

The concept of whole-body coverage within a single diagnostic imaging examination for tumor staging is not new. Both whole-body PET and whole-body MRI have been technically possible for many years.5 However, lengthy data acquisition times of up to 90 minutes have limited their clinical utility. Recent technical innovations have contributed to overcoming this limitation. By basing attenuation correction on the CT data, dual-modality PET/CT obviates the need for lengthy transmission scanning with an external radiation source, thereby reducing examination times by about 30% compared with PET imaging alone.10 Whole-body coverage with MRI is based on vastly accelerated data acquisition due to faster magnetic resonance gradient technology in combination with rolling table platforms.6,17 Whole-body imaging is achieving clinical relevance by providing tumor staging in a single approach.5,24,25

Whole-body CT imaging represents another option for tumor staging in a single session. However, CT alone has been found to be inferior to MRI for assessing parenchymal organs as well as osseous structures.26,27 Furthermore, previous studies have demonstrated reduced sensitivities and specificities in staging lymph nodes when compared with PET imaging.28,29 Thus, whole-body CT alone was not included in our comparison.

T-staging was more reliable with FDG-PET/CT compared with MRI. The inferior performance of MRI reflects the more limited ability to differentiate between viable tumor and adjacent structures when imaging is based on morphological characteristics alone.26,29 Results from this study correspond well to other studies, which have demonstrated accurate T-staging in only 54% with MRI.30 By integrating function and morphological imaging, PET/CT outperforms MRI. Preliminary data have revealed a similar benefit of dual-modality PET/CT compared with PET or CT alone when assessing the T-stage.11,13 Similar to T-staging, FDG-PET/CT proved superior to whole-body MRI in regional lymph node staging. PET-based functional analysis is known to be more accurate in assessing lymphatic spread compared with morphological imaging based predominantly on size criteria.28,31 Limitations associated with size criteria are well-known. They are based on false-positive findings in lymph nodes enlarged due to inflammation, or false-negative findings in normal-sized lymph nodes harboring micrometastases.32,33 Sensitivity and specificity values of 79% and 78%, respectively, lie well within the range of previously published data for MRI detection of malignant lymph nodes.34,35 The introduction of new contrast agents based on ultrasmall superparamagnetic iron oxides (currently undergoing phase 3 clinical evaluation) may enhance the performance of MRI. Initial results report sensitivities ranging between 64% and 100% and specificities of between 50% and 94%.36,37

PET/CT and MRI were similarly accurate when assessing M-stage. Magnetic resonance imaging has been known to be less sensitive than CT when assessing the lung for pulmonary lesions. Furthermore, recent findings by Pastorino et al38 have shown an increase in diagnostic accuracy when adding PET imaging to indeterminate CT findings in patients with pulmonary nodules of unknown dignity. Additional availability of the PET data contributed to differentiating benign from malignant lesions in 43% of patients with equivocal findings on CT. Based on this synergetic property of CT and PET, superiority of PET/CT over MRI can be expected when evaluating metastases to the lung. On the other hand, MRI proved more reliable when assessing the liver for metastases. This finding is in contrast to other studies comparing PET imaging with MRI.9,39 The higher performance of MRI in detecting liver lesions may be explained by the optimized MRI protocol providing unenhanced as well as contrast-enhanced coverage of the liver in 3 different phases. Furthermore, hepatic metastases missed on PET/CT were all found to be below 1 cm in diameter. Increased glucose metabolism in smaller lesions may remain undetected on PET due to partial volume effects caused by respiratory motion.40 Not even the integration of diagnostic CT data into the dual-modality concept could compensate for this limitation. These findings are corroborated by other published data, which illustrated CT imaging to be less sensitive and specific than MRI when assessing the liver for metastases.27

Differences between MRI and PET regarding the detection of bone metastases have been controversial. While some researchers have demonstrated an advantage of PET over MRI,41 others report the opposite.42 The type of malignancy may serve as an explanation for this controversy as some tumors are frequently found to be FDG-PET negative. In our study, however, PET/CT failed to detect bone metastases in 2 patients with bronchial carcinoma and 1 patient with pleural mesothelioma. In all 3 patients, the primary lesion was PET-positive. When considering the overall TNM stage, PET/CT incorrectly determined the TNM stage compared with the standard of reference in 23 patients. In only 6 of these patients, the primary tumor was FDG-PET negative, while the other tumors were FDG-PET positive (mean standardized uptake value: 8.4). Thus, incorrect staging results in the majority of patients cannot be attributed to tumor histological characteristics (FDG-PET–negative tumor cells). Insensitivity to micrometastases may be improved by increasing scanner resolution as well as implementation of new, more specific radioactive tracers.

There are some technical limitations to image fusion in combined PET/CT. Limitations are based on differences in respiration state between the CT and PET components as well as effects of contrast agents on the CT-based PET attenuation correction. Osman et al43 have found inaccurate localization of lesions close to the diaphragm caused by respiration-induced CT and PET misregistration. In this study, however, the CT component of the combined PET/CT was acquired with patients breathing shallowly, which caused respiration mismatch between CT and PET. Based on the use of a special breathing protocol,16 respiration-induced misregistration was minimized in the current imaging protocol. Other clinicians have reported artefacts on PET images due to application of CT contrast agents.4446 However, these artefacts are rare and considered to have only a minor impact on PET image quality and image assessment. Artefacts can be avoided by performing the CT without contrast agents, but nonenhanced CT images cannot be considered fully diagnostic. Because artefacts only appear on attenuation-corrected PET images, PET/CT images were assessed with and without PET attenuation correction in the current study.

Of course, decision on either 1 of the 2 imaging modalities will be influenced by local availability of the 2 imaging procedures. Up-to-date MRI systems have been more widely available than PET/CT scanners. However, high-resolution whole-body MRI requires movable table platforms, which are still not commercially available from all manufacturers. Considering the cost of the examinations and time requirements associated with image acquisition, there were no major differences between the 2 imaging procedures. In the current hospital setting, approximately $1900 is charged for a whole-body PET-CT and $1850 for a whole-body MRI. However, these numbers may vary substantially from country to country.

The most crucial aspect of clinical tumor staging relates to the staging impact on patient management. Compared with whole-body MRI, the therapy regimen was altered in a substantially larger number of patients when staging analysis was based on the PET/CT data. Therefore, FDG-PET/CT can be recommended as a first-line tool for whole-body tumor staging of different oncological diseases. However, MRI with a whole-body field of view may complement the PET/CT data if detection of liver and osseous metastases is deemed crucial. In patients with known history of adverse reactions to iodine-based intravenous contrast agents as well as patients with impaired renal function, a contrast-enhanced whole-body MRI might serve as an alternative to an unenhanced PET/CT.

American Joint Committee on Cancer.  AJCC Cancer Staging Manual, Sixth EditionNew York, NY: Springer; 2002.
Layer G, Steudel A, Schuller H.  et al.  Magnetic resonance imaging to detect bone marrow metastases in the initial staging of small cell lung carcinoma and breast carcinoma.  Cancer.1999;85:1004-1009.
PubMed
Semelka RC, Worawattanakul S, Kelekis NL.  et al.  Liver lesion detection, characterization, and effect on patient management: comparison of single-phase spiral CT and current MR techniques.  J Magn Reson Imaging.1997;7:1040-1047.
PubMed
Ferraris R, del Piano A, Galli JJ. Role of magnetic resonance imaging in the staging of gastrointestinal neoplasms.  Semin Surg Oncol.2001;20:122-129.
PubMed
Walker RE, Eustace SJ. Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging: techniques, clinical indications, and future applications.  Semin Musculoskelet Radiol.2001;5:5-20.
PubMed
Barkhausen J, Quick HH, Lauenstein T.  et al.  Whole-body MR imaging in 30 seconds with real-time true FISP and a continuously rolling table platform: feasibility study.  Radiology.2001;220:252-256.
PubMed
Haberkorn U, Schoenberg SO. Imaging of lung cancer with CT, MRT and PET.  Lung Cancer.2001;34(suppl 3):S13-S23.
PubMed
Kresnik E, Mikosch P, Gallowitsch HJ.  et al.  Evaluation of head and neck cancer with 18F-FDG PET: a comparison with conventional methods.  Eur J Nucl Med.2001;28:816-821.
PubMed
Kinkel K, Lu Y, Both M, Warren RS, Thoeni RF. Detection of hepatic metastases from cancers of the gastrointestinal tract by using noninvasive imaging methods (US, CT, MR imaging, PET): a meta-analysis.  Radiology.2002;224:748-756.
PubMed
Beyer T, Townsend DW, Blodgett TM. Dual-modality PET/CT tomography for clinical oncology.  Q J Nucl Med.2002;46:24-34.
PubMed
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;225:575-581.
PubMed
Bockisch A, Brandt-Mainz K, Gorges R, Muller S, Stattaus J, Antoch G. Diagnosis in medullary thyroid cancer with [18F]FDG-PET and improvement using a combined PET/CT scanner.  Acta Med Austriaca.2003;30:22-25.
PubMed
Antoch G, Stattaus J, Nemat AT.  et al.  Non-small cell lung cancer: dual-modality PET/CT in preoperative staging.  Radiology.2003;229:526-533.
PubMed
Lardinois D, Weder W, Hany TF.  et al.  Staging of non-small-cell lung cancer with integrated positron-emission tomography and computed tomography.  N Engl J Med.2003;348:2500-2507.
PubMed
Antoch G, Freudenberg LS, Stattaus J.  et al.  Whole-body positron emission tomography-CT: optimized CT using oral and IV contrast materials.  AJR Am J Roentgenol.2002;179:1555-1560.
PubMed
Beyer T, Antoch G, Blodgett T, Freudenberg LF, Akhurst T, Mueller S. Dual-modality PET/CT imaging: the effect of respiratory motion on combined image quality in clinical oncology.  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging.2003;30:588-596.
PubMed
Lauenstein TC, Goehde SC, Herborn CU.  et al.  Three-dimensional volumetric interpolated breath-hold MR imaging for whole-body tumor staging in less than 15 minutes: a feasibility study.  AJR Am J Roentgenol.2002;179:445-449.
PubMed
Beggs AD, Hain SF, Curran KM, O'Doherty MJ. FDG-PET as a "metabolic biopsy" tool in non-lung lesions with indeterminate biopsy.  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging.2002;29:542-546.
PubMed
Patz Jr EF, Lowe VJ, Hoffman JM.  et al.  Focal pulmonary abnormalities: evaluation with F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose PET scanning.  Radiology.1993;188:487-490.
PubMed
Dorfman RE, Alpern MB, Gross BH, Sandler MA. Upper abdominal lymph nodes: criteria of normal size determined with CT.  Radiology.1991;180:319-322.
PubMed
Glazer GM, Gross BH, Quint LE, Francis IR, Bookstein FL, Orringer MB. Normal mediastinal lymph nodes: number and size according to American Thoracic Society mapping.  AJR Am J Roentgenol.1985;144:261-265.
PubMed
Feind CR. The head and neck. In: Haagensen DC, Feind CR, Herter FP, Slanetz CA, Weinberg JA. The Lymphatics in Cancer. Philadelphia, Pa: WB Saunders; 1972:60-208.
Mancuso AA, Harnsberger HR, Muraki AS, Stevens MH. Computed tomography of cervical and retropharyngeal lymph nodes: normal anatomy, variants of normal, and applications in staging head and neck cancer.  Radiology.1983;148:709-714.
PubMed
Martinelli M, Townsend D, Meltzer C, Villemagne VV. Survey of results of whole body imaging using the PET/CT at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center PET Facility.  Clin Positron Imaging.2000;3:161.
PubMed
Flamen P, Stroobants S, Van Cutsem E.  et al.  Additional value of whole-body positron emission tomography with fluorine-18-2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose in recurrent colorectal cancer.  J Clin Oncol.1999;17:894-901.
PubMed
Irie H, Honda H, Kaneko K, Kuroiwa T, Yoshimitsu K, Masuda K. Comparison of helical CT and MR imaging in detecting and staging small pancreatic adenocarcinoma.  Abdom Imaging.1997;22:429-433.
PubMed
Semelka RC, Martin DR, Balci C, Lance T. Focal liver lesions: comparison of dual-phase CT and multisequence multiplanar MR imaging including dynamic gadolinium enhancement.  J Magn Reson Imaging.2001;13:397-401.
PubMed
Pieterman RM, van Putten JW, Meuzelaar JJ.  et al.  Preoperative staging of non-small-cell lung cancer with positron-emission tomography.  N Engl J Med.2000;343:254-261.
PubMed
Toloza EM, Harpole L, McCrory DC. Noninvasive staging of non-small cell lung cancer: a review of the current evidence.  Chest.2003;123(1 suppl):137S-146S.
PubMed
Gdeedo A, Van Schil P, Corthouts B, Van Mieghem F, Van Meerbeeck J, Van Marck E. Comparison of imaging TNM [(i)TNM] and pathological TNM [pTNM] in staging of bronchogenic carcinoma.  Eur J Cardiothorac Surg.1997;12:224-227.
PubMed
Reinhardt MJ, Ehritt-Braun C, Vogelgesang D.  et al.  Metastatic lymph nodes in patients with cervical cancer: detection with MR imaging and FDG PET.  Radiology.2001;218:776-782.
PubMed
Staples CA, Muller NL, Miller RR, Evans KG, Nelems B. Mediastinal nodes in bronchogenic carcinoma: comparison between CT and mediastinoscopy.  Radiology.1988;167:367-372.
PubMed
Deslauriers J, Gregoire J. Clinical and surgical staging of non-small cell lung cancer.  Chest.2000;117(4 suppl 1):96S-103S.
PubMed
Hawighorst H, Schoenberg SO, Knapstein PG.  et al.  Staging of invasive cervical carcinoma and of pelvic lymph nodes by high resolution MRI with a phased-array coil in comparison with pathological findings.  J Comput Assist Tomogr.1998;22:75-81.
PubMed
Popperl G, Lang S, Dagdelen O.  et al.  Correction of FDG-PET and MRI/CT with histopathology in primary diagnosis, lymph node staging and diagnosis of recurrency of head and neck cancer.  Rofo Fortschr Geb Rontgenstr Neuen Bildgeb Verfahr.2002;174:714-720.
PubMed
Taupitz M, Wallis F, Heywang-koebrunner SH, Thibault F, Gilles R, Tardivon AA. Axillary lymph node MR imaging with Sinerem in patients with suspected breast cancer.  Radiology.1999;213:369-370.
PubMed
Harisinghani MG, Saini S, Slater GJ, Schnall MD, Rifkin MD. MR imaging of pelvic lymph nodes in primary pelvic carcinoma with ultrasmall superparamagnetic iron oxide (Combidex): preliminary observations.  J Magn Reson Imaging.1997;7:161-163.
PubMed
Pastorino U, Bellomi M, Landoni C.  et al.  Early lung-cancer detection with spiral CT and positron emission tomography in heavy smokers: 2-year results.  Lancet.2003;362:593-597.
PubMed
Yang M, Martin DR, Karabulut N, Frick MP. Comparison of MR and PET imaging for the evaluation of liver metastases.  J Magn Reson Imaging.2003;17:343-349.
PubMed
Gould MK, Maclean CC, Kuschner WG, Rydzak CE, Owens DK. Accuracy of positron emission tomography for diagnosis of pulmonary nodules and mass lesions: a meta-analysis.  JAMA.2001;285:914-924.
PubMed
Daldrup-Link HE, Franzius C, Link TM.  et al.  Whole-body MR imaging for detection of bone metastases in children and young adults: comparison with skeletal scintigraphy and FDG PET.  AJR Am J Roentgenol.2001;177:229-236.
PubMed
Franzius C, Daldrup-Link HE, Wagner-Bohn A.  et al.  FDG-PET for detection of recurrences from malignant primary bone tumors: comparison with conventional imaging.  Ann Oncol.2002;13:157-160.
PubMed
Osman MM, Cohade C, Nakamoto Y, Marshall LT, Leal JP, Wahl RL. Clinically significant inaccurate localization of lesions with PET/CT: frequency in 300 patients.  J Nucl Med.2003;44:240-243.
PubMed
Antoch G, Freudenberg LS, Egelhof T.  et al.  Focal tracer uptake: a potential artifact in contrast-enhanced dual-modality PET/CT scans.  J Nucl Med.2002;43:1339-1342.
PubMed
Cohade C, Osman M, Nakamoto Y.  et al.  Initial experience with oral contrast in PET/CT: phantom and clinical studies.  J Nucl Med.2003;44:412-416.
PubMed
Dizendorf E, Hany TF, Buck A, Von Schulthess GK, Burger C. Cause and magnitude of the error induced by oral CT contrast agent in CT-based attenuation correction of PET emission studies.  J Nucl Med.2003;44:732-738.
PubMed

Figures

Figure 1. A 56-Year-Old Man With Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer of the Right Upper Pulmonary Lobe
Graphic Jump Location
On magnetic resonance imaging, tumor size was underestimated as T1 (arrow in panel A) and differentiation of viable tumor from surrounding atelectasis proved difficult. B, The positron emission tomographic/computed tomographic data set visualized viable tumor tissue characterizing the tumor as T2, which was later verified on histopathological imaging. Tumor size can be accurately delineated on a positron emission tomographic/computed tomographic image by increased glucose metabolism (color coded in panel B). Glucose metabolism decreases in intensity from the tumor center (white) to the tumor periphery (blue).
Figure 2. A 48-Year-Old Woman With Oropharyngeal Carcinoma
Graphic Jump Location
A normal-size lymph node in the left cervical region was not suspected to harbor malignancy on magnetic resonance image (arrow in panel A). The positron emission tomographic/computed tomographic scan demonstrated focally increased glucose metabolism in this lymph node (focal hot spot and arrow in panel B) and malignant disease was later verified by histopathology.
Figure 3. A 73-Year-Old Man With Osseous Metastasis From Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer of the Left Upper Pulmonary Lobe
Graphic Jump Location
Magnetic resonance imaging demonstrated a contrast enhancing lesion in the 12th rib on the right side (arrow in panel A), diagnosed as an osseous metastasis. On the positron emission tomographic/computed tomographic scan, the lesion was not detected due to normal appearance of osseous structures on computed tomography without an increase in glucose metabolism (arrow in panel B). Homogeneous color coding indicates physiological tracer distribution in panel B.

Tables

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Distribution of Severity of Diseases*
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. N-Stage Assessment With PET/CT and MRI*
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 3. Assessment of M-Stage and Distant Metastases to Different Organs With PET/CT and MRI
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 4. Correlation Imaging Results for M-Staging With the Standard of Reference*

References

American Joint Committee on Cancer.  AJCC Cancer Staging Manual, Sixth EditionNew York, NY: Springer; 2002.
Layer G, Steudel A, Schuller H.  et al.  Magnetic resonance imaging to detect bone marrow metastases in the initial staging of small cell lung carcinoma and breast carcinoma.  Cancer.1999;85:1004-1009.
PubMed
Semelka RC, Worawattanakul S, Kelekis NL.  et al.  Liver lesion detection, characterization, and effect on patient management: comparison of single-phase spiral CT and current MR techniques.  J Magn Reson Imaging.1997;7:1040-1047.
PubMed
Ferraris R, del Piano A, Galli JJ. Role of magnetic resonance imaging in the staging of gastrointestinal neoplasms.  Semin Surg Oncol.2001;20:122-129.
PubMed
Walker RE, Eustace SJ. Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging: techniques, clinical indications, and future applications.  Semin Musculoskelet Radiol.2001;5:5-20.
PubMed
Barkhausen J, Quick HH, Lauenstein T.  et al.  Whole-body MR imaging in 30 seconds with real-time true FISP and a continuously rolling table platform: feasibility study.  Radiology.2001;220:252-256.
PubMed
Haberkorn U, Schoenberg SO. Imaging of lung cancer with CT, MRT and PET.  Lung Cancer.2001;34(suppl 3):S13-S23.
PubMed
Kresnik E, Mikosch P, Gallowitsch HJ.  et al.  Evaluation of head and neck cancer with 18F-FDG PET: a comparison with conventional methods.  Eur J Nucl Med.2001;28:816-821.
PubMed
Kinkel K, Lu Y, Both M, Warren RS, Thoeni RF. Detection of hepatic metastases from cancers of the gastrointestinal tract by using noninvasive imaging methods (US, CT, MR imaging, PET): a meta-analysis.  Radiology.2002;224:748-756.
PubMed
Beyer T, Townsend DW, Blodgett TM. Dual-modality PET/CT tomography for clinical oncology.  Q J Nucl Med.2002;46:24-34.
PubMed
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;225:575-581.
PubMed
Bockisch A, Brandt-Mainz K, Gorges R, Muller S, Stattaus J, Antoch G. Diagnosis in medullary thyroid cancer with [18F]FDG-PET and improvement using a combined PET/CT scanner.  Acta Med Austriaca.2003;30:22-25.
PubMed
Antoch G, Stattaus J, Nemat AT.  et al.  Non-small cell lung cancer: dual-modality PET/CT in preoperative staging.  Radiology.2003;229:526-533.
PubMed
Lardinois D, Weder W, Hany TF.  et al.  Staging of non-small-cell lung cancer with integrated positron-emission tomography and computed tomography.  N Engl J Med.2003;348:2500-2507.
PubMed
Antoch G, Freudenberg LS, Stattaus J.  et al.  Whole-body positron emission tomography-CT: optimized CT using oral and IV contrast materials.  AJR Am J Roentgenol.2002;179:1555-1560.
PubMed
Beyer T, Antoch G, Blodgett T, Freudenberg LF, Akhurst T, Mueller S. Dual-modality PET/CT imaging: the effect of respiratory motion on combined image quality in clinical oncology.  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging.2003;30:588-596.
PubMed
Lauenstein TC, Goehde SC, Herborn CU.  et al.  Three-dimensional volumetric interpolated breath-hold MR imaging for whole-body tumor staging in less than 15 minutes: a feasibility study.  AJR Am J Roentgenol.2002;179:445-449.
PubMed
Beggs AD, Hain SF, Curran KM, O'Doherty MJ. FDG-PET as a "metabolic biopsy" tool in non-lung lesions with indeterminate biopsy.  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging.2002;29:542-546.
PubMed
Patz Jr EF, Lowe VJ, Hoffman JM.  et al.  Focal pulmonary abnormalities: evaluation with F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose PET scanning.  Radiology.1993;188:487-490.
PubMed
Dorfman RE, Alpern MB, Gross BH, Sandler MA. Upper abdominal lymph nodes: criteria of normal size determined with CT.  Radiology.1991;180:319-322.
PubMed
Glazer GM, Gross BH, Quint LE, Francis IR, Bookstein FL, Orringer MB. Normal mediastinal lymph nodes: number and size according to American Thoracic Society mapping.  AJR Am J Roentgenol.1985;144:261-265.
PubMed
Feind CR. The head and neck. In: Haagensen DC, Feind CR, Herter FP, Slanetz CA, Weinberg JA. The Lymphatics in Cancer. Philadelphia, Pa: WB Saunders; 1972:60-208.
Mancuso AA, Harnsberger HR, Muraki AS, Stevens MH. Computed tomography of cervical and retropharyngeal lymph nodes: normal anatomy, variants of normal, and applications in staging head and neck cancer.  Radiology.1983;148:709-714.
PubMed
Martinelli M, Townsend D, Meltzer C, Villemagne VV. Survey of results of whole body imaging using the PET/CT at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center PET Facility.  Clin Positron Imaging.2000;3:161.
PubMed
Flamen P, Stroobants S, Van Cutsem E.  et al.  Additional value of whole-body positron emission tomography with fluorine-18-2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose in recurrent colorectal cancer.  J Clin Oncol.1999;17:894-901.
PubMed
Irie H, Honda H, Kaneko K, Kuroiwa T, Yoshimitsu K, Masuda K. Comparison of helical CT and MR imaging in detecting and staging small pancreatic adenocarcinoma.  Abdom Imaging.1997;22:429-433.
PubMed
Semelka RC, Martin DR, Balci C, Lance T. Focal liver lesions: comparison of dual-phase CT and multisequence multiplanar MR imaging including dynamic gadolinium enhancement.  J Magn Reson Imaging.2001;13:397-401.
PubMed
Pieterman RM, van Putten JW, Meuzelaar JJ.  et al.  Preoperative staging of non-small-cell lung cancer with positron-emission tomography.  N Engl J Med.2000;343:254-261.
PubMed
Toloza EM, Harpole L, McCrory DC. Noninvasive staging of non-small cell lung cancer: a review of the current evidence.  Chest.2003;123(1 suppl):137S-146S.
PubMed
Gdeedo A, Van Schil P, Corthouts B, Van Mieghem F, Van Meerbeeck J, Van Marck E. Comparison of imaging TNM [(i)TNM] and pathological TNM [pTNM] in staging of bronchogenic carcinoma.  Eur J Cardiothorac Surg.1997;12:224-227.
PubMed
Reinhardt MJ, Ehritt-Braun C, Vogelgesang D.  et al.  Metastatic lymph nodes in patients with cervical cancer: detection with MR imaging and FDG PET.  Radiology.2001;218:776-782.
PubMed
Staples CA, Muller NL, Miller RR, Evans KG, Nelems B. Mediastinal nodes in bronchogenic carcinoma: comparison between CT and mediastinoscopy.  Radiology.1988;167:367-372.
PubMed
Deslauriers J, Gregoire J. Clinical and surgical staging of non-small cell lung cancer.  Chest.2000;117(4 suppl 1):96S-103S.
PubMed
Hawighorst H, Schoenberg SO, Knapstein PG.  et al.  Staging of invasive cervical carcinoma and of pelvic lymph nodes by high resolution MRI with a phased-array coil in comparison with pathological findings.  J Comput Assist Tomogr.1998;22:75-81.
PubMed
Popperl G, Lang S, Dagdelen O.  et al.  Correction of FDG-PET and MRI/CT with histopathology in primary diagnosis, lymph node staging and diagnosis of recurrency of head and neck cancer.  Rofo Fortschr Geb Rontgenstr Neuen Bildgeb Verfahr.2002;174:714-720.
PubMed
Taupitz M, Wallis F, Heywang-koebrunner SH, Thibault F, Gilles R, Tardivon AA. Axillary lymph node MR imaging with Sinerem in patients with suspected breast cancer.  Radiology.1999;213:369-370.
PubMed
Harisinghani MG, Saini S, Slater GJ, Schnall MD, Rifkin MD. MR imaging of pelvic lymph nodes in primary pelvic carcinoma with ultrasmall superparamagnetic iron oxide (Combidex): preliminary observations.  J Magn Reson Imaging.1997;7:161-163.
PubMed
Pastorino U, Bellomi M, Landoni C.  et al.  Early lung-cancer detection with spiral CT and positron emission tomography in heavy smokers: 2-year results.  Lancet.2003;362:593-597.
PubMed
Yang M, Martin DR, Karabulut N, Frick MP. Comparison of MR and PET imaging for the evaluation of liver metastases.  J Magn Reson Imaging.2003;17:343-349.
PubMed
Gould MK, Maclean CC, Kuschner WG, Rydzak CE, Owens DK. Accuracy of positron emission tomography for diagnosis of pulmonary nodules and mass lesions: a meta-analysis.  JAMA.2001;285:914-924.
PubMed
Daldrup-Link HE, Franzius C, Link TM.  et al.  Whole-body MR imaging for detection of bone metastases in children and young adults: comparison with skeletal scintigraphy and FDG PET.  AJR Am J Roentgenol.2001;177:229-236.
PubMed
Franzius C, Daldrup-Link HE, Wagner-Bohn A.  et al.  FDG-PET for detection of recurrences from malignant primary bone tumors: comparison with conventional imaging.  Ann Oncol.2002;13:157-160.
PubMed
Osman MM, Cohade C, Nakamoto Y, Marshall LT, Leal JP, Wahl RL. Clinically significant inaccurate localization of lesions with PET/CT: frequency in 300 patients.  J Nucl Med.2003;44:240-243.
PubMed
Antoch G, Freudenberg LS, Egelhof T.  et al.  Focal tracer uptake: a potential artifact in contrast-enhanced dual-modality PET/CT scans.  J Nucl Med.2002;43:1339-1342.
PubMed
Cohade C, Osman M, Nakamoto Y.  et al.  Initial experience with oral contrast in PET/CT: phantom and clinical studies.  J Nucl Med.2003;44:412-416.
PubMed
Dizendorf E, Hany TF, Buck A, Von Schulthess GK, Burger C. Cause and magnitude of the error induced by oral CT contrast agent in CT-based attenuation correction of PET emission studies.  J Nucl Med.2003;44:732-738.
PubMed
CME
Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.

Multimedia

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Web of Science® Times Cited: 282

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

See Also...
Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles
[Functional imaging and radiotherapy]. Rev Med Liege 2014;69 Suppl 1():20-8.
JAMAevidence.com