Korean J Radiol.  2016 Oct;17(5):684-694. 10.3348/kjr.2016.17.5.684.

Diagnosing Lung Nodules on Oncologic MR/PET Imaging: Comparison of Fast T1-Weighted Sequences and Influence of Image Acquisition in Inspiration and Expiration Breath-Hold

• Schwenzer
• Seith F
• Gatidis S
• Brendle C
• Schmidt H
• Pfannenberg CA
• laFougère C
• Nikolaou K
• Schraml C

• KMID: 2458060
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2016.17.5.684

Abstract

OBJECTIVE
First, to investigate the diagnostic performance of fast T1-weighted sequences for lung nodule evaluation in oncologic magnetic resonance (MR)/positron emission tomography (PET). Second, to evaluate the influence of image acquisition in inspiration and expiration breath-hold on diagnostic performance.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The study was approved by the local Institutional Review Board. PET/CT and MR/PET of 44 cancer patients were evaluated by 2 readers. PET/CT included lung computed tomography (CT) scans in inspiration and expiration (CTin, CTex). MR/PET included Dixon sequence for attenuation correction and fast T1-weighted volumetric interpolated breath-hold examination (VIBE) sequences (volume interpolated breath-hold examination acquired in inspiration [VIBEin], volume interpolated breath-hold examination acquired in expiration [VIBEex]). Diagnostic performance was analyzed for lesion-, lobe-, and size-dependence. Diagnostic confidence was evaluated (4-point Likert-scale; 1 = high). Jackknife alternative free-response receiver-operating characteristic (JAFROC) analysis was performed.
RESULTS
Seventy-six pulmonary lesions were evaluated. Lesion-based detection rates were: CTex, 77.6%; VIBEin, 53.3%; VIBEex, 51.3%; and Dixon, 22.4%. Lobe-based detection rates were: CTex, 89.6%; VIBEin, 58.3%; VIBEex, 60.4%; and Dixon, 31.3%. In contrast to CT, inspiration versus expiration did not alter diagnostic performance in VIBE sequences. Diagnostic confidence was best for VIBEin and CTex and decreased in VIBEex and Dixon (1.2 ± 0.6; 1.2 ± 0.7; 1.5 ± 0.9; 1.7 ± 1.1, respectively). The JAFROC figure-of-merit of Dixon was significantly lower. All patients with malignant lesions were identified by CTex, VIBEin, and VIBEex, while 3 patients were false-negative in Dixon.
CONCLUSION
Fast T1-weighted VIBE sequences allow for identification of patients with malignant pulmonary lesions. The Dixon sequence is not recommended for lung nodule evaluation in oncologic MR/PET patients. In contrast to CT, inspiration versus expiratory breath-hold in VIBE sequences was less crucial for lung nodule evaluation but was important for diagnostic confidence.

Keyword

PET/MR; PET/MRI; MR/PET; Lung; Pulmonary nodule; Inspiration; Expiration

MeSH Terms

Aged
Breath Holding
Exhalation
Female
Humans
Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted/methods
Lung Neoplasms/*diagnostic imaging
Magnetic Resonance Imaging/methods
Male
Middle Aged
Multimodal Imaging/*methods
Positron Emission Tomography Computed Tomography
Positron-Emission Tomography/methods

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1 Flow chart of patients. Diagram showing inclusion of patients evaluated in study (n = number of patients). FDG = fluorodeoxyglucose, PET/MR = positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance, VIBEex = volume interpolated breath-hold examination acquired in expiration, VIBEin = volume interpolated breath-hold examination acquired in inspiration

• 

  Fig. 2 Lesion size. Histogram showing frequency of lesion sizes for all 76 lesions found in 23 patients. Median lesion size was 6 mm; range was between 2 and 86 mm.

• 

  Fig. 3 67-year-old male patient with lung cancer. A. CT in inspiration. B. VIBE sequence in inspiration. C. Dixon sequence in expiration. In left upper lobe, round atelectasis is shown (arrow), which could easily be identified in CT as well as in VIBE sequence due characteristic comet sign. In Dixon sequence, atelectasis was rated as potentially malignant lesion with confidence rating of 2 (= very likely) leading to false positive lesion. VIBE = volume interpolated breath-hold examination

• 

  Fig. 4 62-year-old male patient with thyroid cancer. A. Dixon sequence in expiration. B. Fused PET/Dixon. C. VIBEin. D. VIBEex. In fused images, focal uptake was observed in periphery of left lung (arrow), which was rated as lesion based on PET information. In Dixon sequence, there was no correlate to finding while in VIBEin and VIBEex small subpleural nodule was visible, which was rated as potentially malignant with confidence level of 1 (= highly likely). In follow-up imaging, lesion grew in size and was rated as metastasis in standard of reference. PET = positron emission tomography, VIBEex = volume interpolated breath-hold examination acquired in expiration, VIBEin = volume interpolated breath-hold examination acquired in inspiration

• 

  Fig. 5 62-year-old male patient with thyroid cancer. A. CT in inspiration. B. VIBE in inspiration. In both modalities, lesion in right lung was identified (arrow). In MRI, lesion was assigned to middle lobe, in CT to upper lobe. This was attributed to non-visibility of pulmonary fissure in MRI, which may generally hamper lobe assignment in MRI especially in patients with accessory fissures or fissure distortions. In follow-up imaging, lesion grew in size and was rated as metastasis in standard of reference. VIBE = volume interpolated breath-hold examination

• 

  Fig. 6 76-year-old female patient with thyroid cancer. A. Dixon sequence in expiration. B. Fused PET/Dixon. C. VIBEin. D. VIBEex. In VIBE images, pulmonary lesion was found both in inspiratory and expiratory scan (arrow). In Dixon sequence, lesion was not adequately visible and scan was rated as negative. Also in fused PET/Dixon images, lesion was not identifiable. Lesion was classified as malignant based on standard of reference due to growth in size in follow-up imaging. PET = positron emission tomography, VIBE = volume interpolated breath-hold examination, VIBEex = volume interpolated breath-hold examination acquired in expiration, VIBEin = volume interpolated breath-hold examination acquired in inspiration

Reference

1. Yoo HJ, Lee JS, Lee JM. Integrated whole body MR/PET: where are we? Korean J Radiol. 2015; 16:32–49.

2. Catalano OA, Rosen BR, Sahani DV, Hahn PF, Guimaraes AR, Vangel MG, et al. Clinical impact of PET/MR imaging in patients with cancer undergoing same-day PET/CT: initial experience in 134 patients--a hypothesis-generating exploratory study. Radiology. 2013; 269:857–869.

3. Boss A, Weiger M, Wiesinger F. Future image acquisition trends for PET/MRI. Semin Nucl Med. 2015; 45:201–211.

4. Gatidis S, Schmidt H, Gückel B, Bezrukov I, Seitz G, Ebinger M, et al. Comprehensive oncologic imaging in infants and preschool children with substantially reduced radiation exposure using combined simultaneous ¹⁸F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance imaging: a direct comparison to ¹⁸F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography. Invest Radiol. 2016; 51:7–14.

5. Grueneisen J, Schaarschmidt BM, Heubner M, Suntharalingam S, Milk I, Kinner S, et al. Implementation of FAST-PET/MRI for whole-body staging of female patients with recurrent pelvic malignancies: a comparison to PET/CT. Eur J Radiol. 2015; 84:2097–2102.

6. Manber R, Thielemans K, Hutton BF, Barnes A, Ourselin S, Arridge S, et al. Practical PET respiratory motion correction in clinical PET/MR. J Nucl Med. 2015; 56:890–896.

7. Würslin C, Schmidt H, Martirosian P, Brendle C, Boss A, Schwenzer NF, et al. Respiratory motion correction in oncologic PET using T1-weighted MR imaging on a simultaneous whole-body PET/MR system. J Nucl Med. 2013; 54:464–471.

8. Biederer J, Beer M, Hirsch W, Wild J, Fabel M, Puderbach M, et al. MRI of the lung (2/3). Why … when … how? Insights Imaging. 2012; 3:355–371.

9. Wild JM, Marshall H, Bock M, Schad LR, Jakob PM, Puderbach M, et al. MRI of the lung (1/3): methods. Insights Imaging. 2012; 3:345–353.

10. Chandarana H, Block TK, Rosenkrantz AB, Lim RP, Kim D, Mossa DJ, et al. Free-breathing radial 3D fat-suppressed T1-weighted gradient echo sequence: a viable alternative for contrast-enhanced liver imaging in patients unable to suspend respiration. Invest Radiol. 2011; 46:648–653.

11. Raad RA, Friedman KP, Heacock L, Ponzo F, Melsaether A, Chandarana H. Outcome of small lung nodules missed on hybrid PET/MRI in patients with primary malignancy. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2016; 43:504–511.

12. Bader TR, Semelka RC, Pedro MS, Armao DM, Brown MA, Molina PL. Magnetic resonance imaging of pulmonary parenchymal disease using a modified breath-hold 3D gradient-echo technique: initial observations. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2002; 15:31–38.

13. Biederer J, Schoene A, Freitag S, Reuter M, Heller M. Simulated pulmonary nodules implanted in a dedicated porcine chest phantom: sensitivity of MR imaging for detection. Radiology. 2003; 227:475–483.

14. Fink C, Puderbach M, Biederer J, Fabel M, Dietrich O, Kauczor HU, et al. Lung MRI at 1.5 and 3 Tesla: observer preference study and lesion contrast using five different pulse sequences. Invest Radiol. 2007; 42:377–383.

15. Eiber M, Martinez-Möller A, Souvatzoglou M, Holzapfel K, Pickhard A, Löffelbein D, et al. Value of a Dixon-based MR/PET attenuation correction sequence for the localization and evaluation of PET-positive lesions. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011; 38:1691–1701.

16. Gilman MD, Fischman AJ, Krishnasetty V, Halpern EF, Aquino SL. Optimal CT breathing protocol for combined thoracic PET/CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006; 187:1357–1360.

17. Juergens KU, Weckesser M, Stegger L, Franzius C, Beetz M, Schober O, et al. Tumor staging using whole-body high-resolution 16-channel PET-CT: does additional low-dose chest CT in inspiration improve the detection of solitary pulmonary nodules? Eur Radiol. 2006; 16:1131–1137.

18. de Juan R, Seifert B, Berthold T, von Schulthess GK, Goerres GW. Clinical evaluation of a breathing protocol for PET/CT. Eur Radiol. 2004; 14:1118–1123.

19. Goerres GW, Kamel E, Heidelberg TN, Schwitter MR, Burger C, von Schulthess GK. PET-CT image co-registration in the thorax: influence of respiration. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2002; 29:351–360.

20. MacMahon H, Austin JH, Gamsu G, Herold CJ, Jett JR, Naidich DP, et al. Guidelines for management of small pulmonary nodules detected on CT scans: a statement from the Fleischner Society. Radiology. 2005; 237:395–400.

21. Chakraborty DP. Analysis of location specific observer performance data: validated extensions of the jackknife free-response (JAFROC) method. Acad Radiol. 2006; 13:1187–1193.

22. Chakraborty DP, Berbaum KS. Observer studies involving detection and localization: modeling, analysis, and validation. Med Phys. 2004; 31:2313–2330.

23. Vogel MN, Brechtel K, Klein MD, Aschoff P, Horger M, Eschmann S, et al. [Evaluation of different breathing and contrast-protocols concerning quality and alignment in 18F-FDG PET/CT]. Rofo. 2007; 179:72–79.

24. Allen-Auerbach M, Yeom K, Park J, Phelps M, Czernin J. Standard PET/CT of the chest during shallow breathing is inadequate for comprehensive staging of lung cancer. J Nucl Med. 2006; 47:298–301.

25. Aquino SL, Kuester LB, Muse VV, Halpern EF, Fischman AJ. Accuracy of transmission CT and FDG-PET in the detection of small pulmonary nodules with integrated PET/CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2006; 33:692–696.

26. Chandarana H, Heacock L, Rakheja R, DeMello LR, Bonavita J, Block TK, et al. Pulmonary nodules in patients with primary malignancy: comparison of hybrid PET/MR and PET/CT imaging. Radiology. 2013; 268:874–881.

27. Rauscher I, Eiber M, Fürst S, Souvatzoglou M, Nekolla SG, Ziegler SI, et al. PET/MR imaging in the detection and characterization of pulmonary lesions: technical and diagnostic evaluation in comparison to PET/CT. J Nucl Med. 2014; 55:724–729.

28. Heye T, Ley S, Heussel CP, Dienemann H, Kauczor HU, Hosch W, et al. Detection and size of pulmonary lesions: how accurate is MRI? A prospective comparison of CT and MRI. Acta Radiol. 2012; 53:153–160.

29. Goo JM, Kim KG, Gierada DS, Castro M, Bae KT. Volumetric measurements of lung nodules with multi-detector row CT: effect of changes in lung volume. Korean J Radiol. 2006; 7:243–248.

30. Drzezga A, Souvatzoglou M, Eiber M, Beer AJ, Fürst S, Martinez-Möller A, et al. First clinical experience with integrated whole-body PET/MR: comparison to PET/CT in patients with oncologic diagnoses. J Nucl Med. 2012; 53:845–855.

31. Stolzmann P, Veit-Haibach P, Chuck N, Rossi C, Frauenfelder T, Alkadhi H, et al. Detection rate, location, and size of pulmonary nodules in trimodality PET/CT-MR: comparison of low-dose CT and Dixon-based MR imaging. Invest Radiol. 2013; 48:241–246.

32. Schaarschmidt B, Buchbender C, Gomez B, Rubbert C, Hild F, Köhler J, et al. Thoracic staging of non-small-cell lung cancer using integrated (18)F-FDG PET/MR imaging: diagnostic value of different MR sequences. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015; 42:1257–1267.

33. Sommer G, Tremper J, Koenigkam-Santos M, Delorme S, Becker N, Biederer J, et al. Lung nodule detection in a high-risk population: comparison of magnetic resonance imaging and low-dose computed tomography. Eur J Radiol. 2014; 83:600–605.

34. Fraioli F, Screaton NJ, Janes SM, Win T, Menezes L, Kayani I, et al. Non-small-cell lung cancer resectability: diagnostic value of PET/MR. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015; 42:49–55.

35. Munden RF, Erasmus JJ, Wahba H, Fineberg NS. Follow-up of small (4 mm or less) incidentally detected nodules by computed tomography in oncology patients: a retrospective review. J Thorac Oncol. 2010; 5:1958–1962.

36. Lee KH, Park CM, Lee SM, Lee JM, Cho JY, Paeng JC, et al. Pulmonary nodule detection in patients with a primary malignancy using hybrid PET/MRI: is there value in adding contrast-enhanced MR imaging? PLoS One. 2015; 10:e0129660.