Measurement Repeatability of <sup>18</sup>F-FDG PET/CT Versus <sup>18</sup>F-FDG PET/MRI in Solid Tumors of the Pelvis.

Fraum, Tyler J; Fowler, Kathryn J; Crandall, John P; Laforest, Richard A; Salter, Amber; An, Hongyu; Jacobs, Michael A; Grigsby, Perry W et al. · J Nucl Med · 2019

Where this comes from

Abstract

Knowledge of the within-subject variability of <sup>18</sup>F-FDG PET/MRI measurements is necessary for proper interpretation of quantitative PET or MRI metrics in the context of therapeutic efficacy assessments with integrated PET/MRI scanners. The goal of this study was to determine the test-retest repeatability of these metrics on PET/MRI, with comparison to similar metrics acquired by PET/CT. <b>Methods:</b> This prospective study enrolled subjects with pathology-proven pelvic malignancies. Baseline imaging consisted of PET/CT immediately followed by PET/MRI, using a single 370-MBq <sup>18</sup>F-FDG dose. Repeat imaging was performed within 7 d using an identical imaging protocol, with no oncologic therapy between sessions. PET imaging on both scanners consisted of a list-mode acquisition at a single pelvic station. The MRI consisted of 2-point Dixon imaging for attenuation correction, standard sequences for anatomic correlation, and diffusion-weighted imaging. PET data were statically reconstructed using various frame durations and minimizing uptake time differences between sessions. SUV metrics were extracted for both PET/CT and PET/MRI in each imaging session. Apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) metrics were extracted for both PET/MRI sessions. <b>Results:</b> The study cohort consisted of 14 subjects (13 female, 1 male) with various pelvic cancers (11 cervical, 2 rectal, 1 endometrial). For SUV<sub>max</sub>, the within-subject coefficient of variation (wCV) appeared higher for PET/CT (8.5%-12.8%) than PET/MRI (6.6%-8.7%) across all PET reconstructions, though with no significant repeatability differences (all <i>P</i> values ≥ 0.08) between modalities. For lean body mass-adjusted SUV<sub>peak</sub>, the wCVs appeared similar for PET/CT (9.9%-11.5%) and PET/MRI (9.2%-11.3%) across all PET reconstructions, again with no significant repeatability differences (all <i>P</i> values ≥ 0.14) between modalities. For PET/MRI, the wCV for ADC<sub>median</sub> of 3.5% appeared lower than the wCVs for SUV<sub>max</sub> (6.6%-8.7%) and SUL<sub>peak</sub> (9.2%-11.3%), though without significant repeatability differences (all <i>P</i> values ≥ 0.23). <b>Conclusion:</b> For solid tumors of the pelvis, the repeatability of the evaluated SUV and ADC metrics on <sup>18</sup>F-FDG PET/MRI is both acceptably high and similar to previously published values for <sup>18</sup>F-FDG PET/CT and MRI, supporting the use of <sup>18</sup>F-FDG PET/MRI for quantitative oncologic treatment response assessments.

Medical subject headings