Purpose To compare the diagnostic performance of 18-FDG-PET/MR and PET/CT for the N-and M-staging of breast cancer. Methods and materials Two independent readers blinded to clinical/follow-up data reviewed PET/MR and PET/CT examinations performed for initial or recurrent breast cancer staging in 80 consecutive patients (mean age = 48 ± 12.9 years). The diagnostic confidence for lesions in the contralateral breast, axillary/internal mammary nodes, bones and other distant sites were recorded. Sensitivity, specificity, positive (PPV) and negative predictive values (NPV) were calculated. The standard of reference included pathology and/or follow-up > 12 months. Results Nine of 80 patients had bone metastases; 13/80 had other distant metastases, 44/80 had axillary, 9/80 had internal mammary and 3/80 had contralateral breast tumours. Inter-reader agreement for lesions was excellent (weighted kappa = 0.833 for PET/CT and 0.823 for PET/MR) with similar reader confidence for the two tests (ICC = 0.875). In the patient-perpatient analysis, sensitivity and specificity of PET/MRI and PET/CT were similar (p > 0.05). In the lesion-per-lesion analysis, the sensitivity of PET/MR and PET/CT for bone metastases, other metastases, axillary and internal mammary nodes, contralateral tumours and all lesions together was 0.924 and 0.6923 (p = 0.0034), 0.923 and 0.923 (p = 1), 0.854 and 0.812 (p = 0.157), 0.9 and 0.9 (p = 1), 1 and 0.25 (p = 0.083), and 0.89 and 0.77 (p = 0.0013) respectively. The corresponding specificity was 0.953 and 1 (p = 0.0081), 1 and 1 (p = 1), 0.893 and 0.92 (p = 0.257), 1 and 1 (p = 1), 0.987 and 0.99 (p = 1) and 0.96 and 0.98 (p = 0.0075) respectively. Conclusions Reader confidence, inter-reader agreement and diagnostic performance per patient were similar with PET/MR and PET/CT. However, for all lesions together, PET/MR had a superior sensitivity and lower specificity in the lesion-per-lesion analysis. Key Points • N and M breast cancer staging performance of PET/MR and PET/CT is similar per patient. • In a lesion-per-lesion analysis PET/MR is more sensitive than PET/CT especially for bone metastasis. • Readers' diagnostic confidence is similar for both tests.

No abstract

To evaluate iterative metal artifact reduction (iMAR) technique in images data of hip prosthesis on computed tomography (CT) and the added value of advanced modeled iterative reconstruction (ADMIRE) compared with standard filtered back projection (FBP). Twenty-eight patients addressed to CT examinations for hip prosthesis were included prospectively. Images were reconstructed with iMAR algorithm in addition to FBP and ADMIRE techniques. Measuring image noise assessed objective image quality and attenuation values with standardized region of interest (ROI) in 4 predefined anatomical structures (gluteus medius and rectus femoris muscles, inferior and anterior abdominal fat, and femoral vessels when contrast media was present). Subjective image quality was graded on a 5-point Likert scale, taking into account the size of artifacts, the metal–bone interface and the conspicuity of pelvic organs, and the diagnostic confidence. Improvement in overall image quality was statistically significant using iMAR ( P <.001) compared with ADMIRE and FBP. ADMIRE did not show any impact in image noise, attenuation value, or global quality image. iMAR showed a significant decrease in image noise in all ROIs (Hounsfield Unit) as compared with FBP and ADMIRE. Interobserver agreement was high in all reconstructions (FBP, FBP+iMAR, ADMIRE, and ADMIRE + iMAR) more than 0.8. iMAR reconstructions showed emergence of new artifacts in bone–metal interface. iMAR algorithm allows a significant reduction of metal artifacts on CT images with unilateral or bilateral prostheses without additional value of ADMIRE. It improves the analysis of surrounding tissue but potentially generates new artifacts in bone–metal interface.

BackgroundSynthetic magnetic resonance (MR) is a method allowing reduction of examination time and access to quantitative imaging.PurposeThis study sought to assess the image quality and diagnostic accuracy of synthetic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) compared to standard MRI in patients with knee pain.Material and MethodsIn total, 22 patients underwent standard 1.5 knee MRI with an added synthetic sequence. Quantitative T1, T2, and proton density (PD) images were generated synthetically; T1, PD, and short tau inversion recovery (STIR) weighted images were created with chosen echo time (TE), repetition time (TR), and inversion time (TI). Two blinded musculoskeletal radiologists evaluated the overall sequence quality, visualization of anatomic structures, and presence of artifacts using a 3-point score.ResultsThe synthetic sequence was acquired in 39% less time than the conventional MRI. Synthetic PD, T1, and STIR images were rated fair (2%, 5%, and 2%, respectively) or good quality (98%, 95%, and 98%, respectively), despite the presence of popliteal artery artifacts. Cartilage and meniscus were well visualized in all cases. Anterior cruciate ligament visualization was rated poor in 7%, 14%, and 30% of PD, STIR, and T1 images, respectively.ConclusionOur pilot study confirmed the feasibility of synthetic MRI in knee examinations, proving faster and achieving appropriate quality and good diagnostic confidence.