How PET/MR Can Add Value for Children with Cancer

被引：14
作者：
Daldrup-Link H.E. [1 ,2 ]
机构：
[1] Department of Radiology, Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital, and Pediatric Molecular Imaging Program (@PedsMIPS) in the Molecular Imaging Program at Stanford (MIPS), Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford University, 725 Welch Rd, Rm 1665, Stanfo
[2] Department of Pediatrics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA
来源：
Current Radiology Reports | / 5卷 / 3期
关键词：
Magnetic resonance; Pediatric cancer; Pediatric lymphoma; Pediatric sarcoma; PET/MR; Positron emission tomography;
D O I：
10.1007/s40134-017-0207-y
中图分类号：
学科分类号：
摘要：
Purpose of Review: To review how positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance (PET/MR) technology could add value for pediatric cancer patients. Recent Findings: Since many primary tumors in children are evaluated with MR imaging and metastases are detected with PET/computed tomography (CT), integrated PET/MR can be a time-efficient and convenient solution for pediatric cancer staging. 18 F-FDG PET/MR can assess primary tumors and the whole body in one imaging session, avoid repetitive anesthesia, and reduce radiation exposure compared to 18 F-FDG PET/CT. This article lists 10 action points, which might improve the clinical value of PET/MR for children with cancer. However, even if PET/MR proves valuable, it cannot enter mainstream applications if it is not accessible to the majority of pediatric cancer patients. Therefore, innovations are needed to make PET/MR scanners affordable and increase patient throughput. Summary: PET/MR offers opportunities for more efficient, accurate, and safe diagnoses of pediatric cancer patients. The impact on patient management and outcomes has to be substantiated by large-scale prospective clinical trials. © 2017, Springer Science+Business Media New York.
引用
收藏
相关论文
共 119 条
[21]  
Furth C., Steffen I.G., Amthauer H., Ruf J., Misch D., Schonberger S., Et al., Early and late therapy response assessment with [ <sup>18</sup> F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in pediatric Hodgkin’s lymphoma: analysis of a prospective multicenter trial , J Clin Oncol, 27, 26, pp. 4385-4391, (2009)
[22]  
Sher A.C., Seghers V., Paldino M.J., Dodge C., Krishnamurthy R., Krishnamurthy R., Et al., Assessment of sequential PET/MRI in comparison with PET/CT of pediatric lymphoma: a prospective study, Am J Roentgenol, 206, 3, pp. 623-631, (2016)
[23]  
Lyons K., Seghers V., Sorensen J.I., Zhang W., Paldino M.J., Krishnamurthy R., Et al., Comparison of standardized uptake values in normal structures between PET/CT and PET/MRI in a tertiary pediatric hospital: a prospective study, Am J Roentgenol, 205, 5, pp. 1094-1101, (2015)
[24]  
Balyasnikova S., Lofgren J., de Nijs R., Zamogilnaya Y., Hojgaard L., Fischer B.M., PET/MR in oncology: an introduction with focus on MR and future perspectives for hybrid imaging, Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging, 2, 4, pp. 458-474, (2012)
[25]  
Drzezga A., Souvatzoglou M., Eiber M., Beer A.J., Furst S., Martinez-Moller A., Et al., First clinical experience with integrated whole-body PET/MR: comparison to PET/CT in patients with oncologic diagnoses, J Nucl Med, 53, 6, pp. 845-855, (2012)
[26]  
Herzog H., Van Den Hoff J., Combined PET/MR systems: an overview and comparison of currently available options, Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging, 56, 3, pp. 247-267, (2012)
[27]  
Platzek I., Beuthien-Baumann B., Langner J., Popp M., Schramm G., Ordemann R., Et al., PET/MR for therapy response evaluation in malignant lymphoma: initial experience, MAGMA, 26, 1, pp. 49-55, (2013)
[28]  
Brenner D.J., Doll R., Goodhead D.T., Hall E.J., Land C.E., Little J.B., Et al., Cancer risks attributable to low doses of ionizing radiation: assessing what we really know, Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 100, 24, pp. 13761-13766, (2003)
[29]  
Hall E.J., Brenner D.J., Cancer risks from diagnostic radiology, Br J Radiol., 81, 965, pp. 362-378, (2008)
[30]  
Robbins E., Radiation risks from imaging studies in children with cancer, Pediatr Blood Cancer, 51, 4, pp. 453-457, (2008)
12345678910