2013
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2013.07.027
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Depiction and characterization of liver lesions in whole body [18F]-FDG PET/MRI

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
51
0
1

Year Published

2014
2014
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
5
3
1

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 86 publications
(55 citation statements)
references
References 19 publications
3
51
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Hence, the introduction of PET/MR imaging scanners, using MR imaging for the morphologic component, enables a combination of high-quality morphologic imaging with excellent soft-tissue contrast and the diagnostic advantages of PET while reducing ionizing radiation exposure. Numerous oncology studies have shown the high diagnostic value of PET/MR imaging, which is comparable and sometimes superior to PET/CT in dedicated applications (e.g., detection of liver metastases) (15,22,23). However, the long acquisition times of PET/MR imaging, caused mainly by the application of various MR sequences, can cause patient discomfort.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Hence, the introduction of PET/MR imaging scanners, using MR imaging for the morphologic component, enables a combination of high-quality morphologic imaging with excellent soft-tissue contrast and the diagnostic advantages of PET while reducing ionizing radiation exposure. Numerous oncology studies have shown the high diagnostic value of PET/MR imaging, which is comparable and sometimes superior to PET/CT in dedicated applications (e.g., detection of liver metastases) (15,22,23). However, the long acquisition times of PET/MR imaging, caused mainly by the application of various MR sequences, can cause patient discomfort.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Therefore, when histopathologic confirmation was not available, only patients with an imaging follow-up of at least 6 mo were included. In accordance with previous publications evaluating the diagnostic capacity of PET/MR imaging for tumor detection, the reference standard consisted of a consensus interpretation for each lesion based on all available histopathologic samples, prior examinations, PET/CT, PET/MR imaging, cross-sectional follow-up imaging (mean 6 SD, 345 6 155 d; range, 187-679), and clinical follow-up (15,16). Correspondingly, a suggestive lesion was considered malignant when it disappeared, grew smaller, or showed decreasing 18 F-FDG accumulation under systemic therapy and when an increase or decrease in number and size of lesions was seen in subsequent examinations.…”
Section: Reference Standardmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Non-enhanced fast T1 weighted MR imaging showed superiority to low-dose CT in terms of conspicuity rating in liver lesions [36]. Benign lesions of liver as well as metastatic lesions were better characterized by PET/MRI than PET/CT [46] (Fig. 3).…”
Section: Cancer In Gastrointestinal Tract and Abdomenmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…need and indication. Several reports have used lengthy protocols that cover the whole body in full diagnostic quality, with contrast medium and several whole-body sequences (13)(14)(15). Particularly in prostate cancer, such protocols reflect an excessive bias toward MR imaging.…”
Section: Current Literaturementioning
confidence: 99%