Three-way Comparison of Whole-Body MR, Coregistered Whole-Body FDG PET/MR, and Integrated Whole-Body FDG PET/CT Imaging: TNM and Stage Assessment Capability for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Patients
Authors
Affiliations
Purpose: To prospectively compare the capabilities for TNM classification and assessment of clinical stage and operability among whole-body magnetic resonance (MR) imaging, coregistered positron emission tomographic (PET)/MR imaging with and without MR signal intensity (SI) assessment, and integrated fluorine 18 fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET/computed tomography (CT) in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients.
Materials And Methods: The institutional review board approved this study, and written informed consent was obtained from each patient. One hundred forty consecutive NSCLC patients (75 men, 65 women; mean age, 72 years) prospectively underwent whole-body MR imaging, FDG PET/CT, conventional radiologic examinations, and surgical, pathologic, and/or follow-up examinations. All factors and clinical stage and operability were then visually assessed. All PET/MR examinations were assessed with and without SI assessment. One examination used anatomic, metabolic, and relaxation-time information, and the other used only anatomic and metabolic information. κ statistics were used for assessment of all factors and clinical stages with final diagnoses. McNemar test was used to compare the capability of all methods to assess operability.
Results: Agreements of assessment of every factor (κ = 0.63-0.97) and clinical stage (κ = 0.65-0.90) were substantial or almost perfect. Regarding capability to assess operability, accuracy of whole-body MR imaging and PET/MR imaging with SI assessment (97.1% [136 of 140]) was significantly higher than that of MR/PET without SI assessment and integrated FDG PET/CT (85.0% [119 of 140]; P < .001).
Conclusion: Accuracies of whole-body MR imaging and PET/MR imaging with SI assessment are superior to PET/MR without SI assessment and PET/CT for identification of TNM factor, clinical stage, and operability evaluation of NSCLC patients.
Yu D, Chen C Front Med (Lausanne). 2025; 11:1517805.
PMID: 39871837 PMC: 11769939. DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2024.1517805.
Mapping the knowledge landscape of the PET/MR domain: a multidimensional bibliometric analysis.
Hu X, Peng J, Huang M, Huang L, Wang Q, Huang D Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2025; .
PMID: 39754665 DOI: 10.1007/s00259-024-07043-8.
Zhang M, Liu Z, Yuan Y, Yang W, Cao X, Ma M Diagn Interv Radiol. 2024; 30(2):99-106.
PMID: 38291975 PMC: 10916527. DOI: 10.4274/dir.2023.232280.
Takenaka D, Ozawa Y, Yamamoto K, Shinohara M, Ikedo M, Yui M Magn Reson Med Sci. 2023; 23(4):487-501.
PMID: 37661425 PMC: 11447466. DOI: 10.2463/mrms.mp.2023-0068.
Zhang M, Yang W, Yuan Y, Liu Z, Yue X, Cao X Jpn J Radiol. 2023; 42(1):87-95.
PMID: 37566187 DOI: 10.1007/s11604-023-01477-0.