Preoperative Assessment of Pancreatic Cancer with FDG PET/MR Imaging versus FDG PET/CT Plus Contrast-enhanced Multidetector CT: A Prospective Preliminary Study.
prospective_cohort · Level II
Where this comes from
- Record sourced from PubMed, PMID 27556273.
- Also identified by DOI 10.1148/radiol.2016152798.
- No licence information is recorded for this record.
- Because redistribution is not established, this page shows the abstract only. Follow the links below for the full text.
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<sub>max</sub> and SUV<sub>mean</sub>, 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<sub>max</sub> and SUV<sub>mean</sub> 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. <sup>©</sup> RSNA, 2016 Online supplemental material is available for this article.
Medical subject headings
- Magnetic Resonance Imaging
- Pancreatic Neoplasms
- Positron Emission Tomography Computed Tomography