Preoperative Assessment of Pancreatic Cancer with FDG PET/MR Imaging versus FDG PET/CT Plus Contrast-enhanced Multidetector CT: A Prospective Preliminary Study

Abstract

Purpose To determine the diagnostic performance of fluorine 18 fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET)/magnetic resonance (MR) imaging in the preoperative assessment of pancreatic cancer in comparison with that of FDG PET/computed tomography (CT) plus contrast material-enhanced multidetector CT. Materials and Methods This prospective study was approved by the institutional review board; written informed consent was obtained. Thirty-seven patients with 39 pancreatic tumors underwent preoperative FDG PET/MR imaging, PET/CT, and contrast-enhanced multidetector CT. The authors measured maximal and mean standardized uptake values (SUV and SUV, respectively) of pancreatic cancer at PET/MR imaging and PET/CT. Two radiologists independently reviewed the two imaging sets (set 1, PET/MR imaging; set 2, PET/CT plus multidetector CT) to determine tumor resectability according to a five-point scale, N stage (N0 or N positive), and M stage (M0 or M1). With use of clinical-surgical-pathologic findings as the standard of reference (n = 20), diagnostic performances of the two imaging sets were compared by using the McNemar test. Results Both SUV and SUV of pancreatic tumors showed strong correlations between PET/MR imaging and PET/CT (r = 0.897 and 0.890, respectively; P < .001). The diagnostic performance of PET/MR imaging was not significantly different from that of PET/CT plus multidetector CT in the assessment of tumor resectability (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve: 0.891 vs 0.776, respectively, for reviewer 1 [P = .109] and 0.859 vs 0.797 for reviewer 2 [P = .561]), N stage (accuracy: 54% [seven of 13 patients] vs 31% [four of 13 patients]; P = .250 for both reviewers), and M stage (accuracy: 94% [16 of 17 patients] vs 88% [15 of 17 patients] for reviewer 1 [P > .999] and 94% [16 of 17 patients] vs 82% [14 of 17 patients] for reviewer 2 [P = .500]). Conclusion FDG PET/MR imaging showed a diagnostic performance similar to that of PET/CT plus contrast-enhanced multidetector CT in the preoperative evaluation of the resectability and staging of pancreatic tumors. RSNA, 2016 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Synergistic effect of a drug loaded electrospun patch and systemic chemotherapy in pancreatic cancer xenograft

“…Although only one mouse was assessed by PET/MRI in this experiment, the results indicated the potential of the technique for assessing the therapeutic effect. Close monitoring of the tumours using various techniques is useful for establishing a treatment plan 46 - 48 …”

Imaging Diagnosis of Intrahepatic and Perihilar Cholangiocarcinoma: Recent Advances and Challenges

“…However, PET/CT has also been shown to result in both false-positive and false-negative diagnoses in patients with biliary inflammation and mucinous CC, respectively (108). Recently, a whole-body 18 F-FDG PET/ MRI system has been introduced to clinical practice, and promising results have been reported regarding its capabilities in the diagnosis, staging, and monitoring of oncologic patients (109)(110)(111). Considering that MRI with MRCP, as well as PET imaging, is usually performed in surgical candidates with CC, PET/MRI, which provides both MR and PET information in a single examination, may lead to more efficient preoperative work-up, although its clinical benefits still require further validation.…”

Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma Staging in the Era of Preoperative Chemotherapy and Radiation Therapy

“…Finally, the development of PET-MR imaging can be expected to provide improved evaluation of the treatment response by combining two functional approaches, namely, radioisotope quantitation and determination of the apparent diffusion coefficient (Fig 10). The only available data on PET-MR imaging in PDA come from a preliminary study of patients undergoing initial staging (94). However, the possible contribution of PET-MR imaging to assessing the treatment response is being evaluated.…”