English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

(18)F-FDG PET/CT has become the reference standard in oncologic imaging against which the performance of other imaging modalities is measured. The promise of PET/MRI includes multiparametric imaging to further improve diagnosis and phenotyping of cancer. Rather than focusing on these capabilities, many investigators have examined whether (18)F-FDG PET combined with mostly anatomic MRI improves cancer staging and restaging. After a description of PET/MRI scanner designs and a discussion of technical and operational issues, we review the available literature to determine whether cancer assessments are improved with PET/MRI. The available data show that PET/MRI is feasible and performs as well as PET/CT in most types of cancer. Diagnostic advantages may be achievable in prostate cancer and in bone metastases, whereas disadvantages exist in lung nodule assessments. We conclude that (18)F-FDG PET/MRI and PET/CT provide comparable diagnostic information when MRI is used simply to provide the anatomic framework. Thus, PET/MRI could be used in lieu of PET/CT if this approach becomes economically viable and if reasonable workflows can be established. Future studies should explore the multiparametric potential of MRI.

18F-FDG PET/CT and PET/MRI Perform Equally Well in Cancer: Evidence from Studies on More Than 2,300 Patients

¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT and PET/MRI Perform Equally Well in Cancer: Evidence from Studies on More Than 2,300 Patients