Download PDF
Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 2010; 14(1): 068-085
DOI: 10.1055/s-0030-1248707
© Thieme Medical Publishers

Whole-Body Imaging Modalities in Oncology

Fiona Carty1 , Conor P. Shortt2 , Martin J. Shelly3 , Stephen J. Eustace1 , 3 , 4 , Martin J. O'Connell3
  • 1Department of Radiology, Cappagh National Orthopaedic Hospital, Finglas, Dublin, Ireland
  • 2Department of Radiology, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
  • 3Department of Radiology, Mater Misericordiae University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland
  • 4Department of Radiology, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
12 March 2010 (online)

Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

ABSTRACT

This article outlines the expanding approaches to whole-body imaging in oncology focusing on whole-body MRI and comparing it to emerging applications of whole-body CT, scintigraphy, and above all PET CT imaging. Whole-body MRI is widely available, non-ionizing and rapidly acquired, and inexpensive relative to PET CT. While it has many advantages, WBMRI is non-specific and, when compared to PET CT, is less sensitive. This article expands each of these issues comparing individual modalities as they refer to specific cancers.

KEYWORDS

WBMRI - whole-body CT - PETCT - oncology

REFERENCES

  • 1 Kapoor V, McCook B M, Torok F S. An introduction to PET-CT imaging.  Radiographics. 2004;  24(2) 523-543
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Kauhanen S P, Komar G, Seppänen M P et al.. A prospective diagnostic accuracy study of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography, multidetector row computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging in primary diagnosis and staging of pancreatic cancer.  Ann Surg. 2009;  250(6) 957-963
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Nam E J, Yun M J, Oh Y T et al.. Diagnosis and staging of primary ovarian cancer: correlation between PET/CT, Doppler US and CT or MRI.  Gynecol Oncol. 2009; 
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Antoch G, Vogt F M, Freudenberg L S et al.. Whole-body dual-modality PET/CT and whole-body MRI for tumor staging in oncology.  JAMA. 2003;  290(24) 3199-3206
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Czernin J, Allen-Auerbach M, Schelbert H R. Improvements in cancer staging with PET/CT: literature-based evidence as of September 2006.  J Nucl Med. 2007;  48(suppl 1) 78S-88S
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Hillner B E, Siegel B A, Liu D et al.. Impact of positron emission tomography/computed tomography and positron emission tomography (PET) alone on expected management of patients with cancer: initial results from the National Oncologic PET Registry.  J Clin Oncol. 2008;  26(13) 2155-2161
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Mawlawi O, Townsend D W. Multimodality imaging: an update on PET/CT technology.  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2009;  36(suppl 1) S15-S29
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Nanni C, Rubello D, Castellucci P et al.. Role of 18F-FDG PET-CT imaging for the detection of an unknown primary tumour: preliminary results in 21 patients.  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2005;  32(5) 589-592
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Blodgett T M, Meltzer C C, Townsend D W. PET/CT: form and function.  Radiology. 2007;  242(2) 360-385
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Poeppel T D, Krause B J, Heusner T A, Boy C, Bockisch A, Antoch G. PET/CT for the staging and follow-up of patients with malignancies.  Eur J Radiol. 2009;  70(3) 382-392
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Hoh C K. Clinical use of FDG PET.  Nucl Med Biol. 2007;  34(7) 737-742
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Marklund M, Christensen R, Torp-Pedersen S, Thomsen C, Nolsøe C P. Signal intensity of normal breast tissue at MR mammography on midfield: applying a random coefficient model evaluating the effect of doubling the contrast dose.  Eur J Radiol. 2009;  69(1) 93-101
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Goo H W, Choi S H, Ghim T, Moon H N, Seo J J. Whole-body MRI of paediatric malignant tumours: comparison with conventional oncological imaging methods.  Pediatr Radiol. 2005;  35(8) 766-773
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Eustace S J, Nelson E. Whole body magnetic resonance imaging.  BMJ. 2004;  328(7453) 1387-1388
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Eustace S, Tello R, DeCarvalho V et al.. A comparison of whole-body turboSTIR MR imaging and planar 99mTc-methylene diphosphonate scintigraphy in the examination of patients with suspected skeletal metastases.  AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1997;  169(6) 1655-1661
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Johnston C, Brennan S, Ford S, Eustace S. Whole body MR imaging: applications in oncology.  Eur J Surg Oncol. 2006;  32(3) 239-246
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Schmidt G P, Reiser M F, Baur-Melnyk A. Whole-body MRI for the staging and follow-up of patients with metastasis.  Eur J Radiol. 2009;  70(3) 393-400
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Schmidt G P, Baur-Melnyk A, Herzog P et al.. High-resolution whole-body magnetic resonance image tumor staging with the use of parallel imaging versus dual-modality positron emission tomography-computed tomography: experience on a 32-channel system.  Invest Radiol. 2005;  40(12) 743-753
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 O'Connell M J, Hargaden G, Powell T, Eustace S J. Whole-body turbo short tau inversion recovery MR imaging using a moving tabletop.  AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002;  179(4) 866-868
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Hopper K D, Singapuri K, Finkel A. Body CT and oncologic imaging.  Radiology. 2000;  215(1) 27-40
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Poitout D, Gaujoux G, Lempidakis M et al.. X-ray computed tomography or MRI in the assessment of bone tumor extension [in French].  Chirurgie. 1991;  117(5–6) 488-490
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Schmidt G P, Reiser M F, Baur-Melnyk A. Whole-body imaging of the musculoskeletal system: the value of MR imaging.  Skeletal Radiol. 2007;  36(12) 1109-1119
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Lardinois D, Weder W, Hany T F et al.. Staging of non-small-cell lung cancer with integrated positron-emission tomography and computed tomography.  N Engl J Med. 2003;  348(25) 2500-2507
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 24 Plathow C, Aschoff P, Lichy M P et al.. Positron emission tomography/computed tomography and whole-body magnetic resonance imaging in staging of advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer—initial results.  Invest Radiol. 2008;  43(5) 290-297
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 25 Ohno Y, Koyama H, Onishi Y et al.. Non-small cell lung cancer: whole-body MR examination for M-stage assessment—utility for whole-body diffusion-weighted imaging compared with integrated FDG PET/CT.  Radiology. 2008;  248(2) 643-654
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 26 Rendina E A, Bognolo D A, Mineo T C et al.. Computed tomography for the evaluation of intrathoracic invasion by lung cancer.  J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1987;  94(1) 57-63
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 27 Buy J N, Ghossain M A, Poirson F et al.. Computed tomography of mediastinal lymph nodes in nonsmall cell lung cancer. A new approach based on the lymphatic pathway of tumor spread.  J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1988;  12(4) 545-552
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 28 Marom E M, McAdams H P, Erasmus J J et al.. Staging non-small cell lung cancer with whole-body PET.  Radiology. 1999;  212(3) 803-809
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 29 Mac Manus M P, Hicks R J, Matthews J P et al.. Positron emission tomography is superior to computed tomography scanning for response-assessment after radical radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer.  J Clin Oncol. 2003;  21(7) 1285-1292
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 30 Goerres G W, von Schulthess G K, Steinert H C. Why most PET of lung and head-and-neck cancer will be PET/CT.  J Nucl Med. 2004;  45(suppl 1) 66S-71S
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 31 Mukherji S K, Bradford C R. Controversies: is there a role for positron-emission tomographic CT in the initial staging of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma?.  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2006;  27(2) 243-245
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 32 Malone J P, Gerberi M A, Vasireddy S et al.. Early prediction of response to chemoradiotherapy for head and neck cancer: reliability of restaging with combined positron emission tomography and computed tomography.  Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2009;  135(11) 1119-1125
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 33 Shah G V, Wesolowski J R, Ansari S A, Mukherji S K. New directions in head and neck imaging.  J Surg Oncol. 2008;  97(8) 644-648
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 34 Ryan W R, Fee Jr W E, Le Q T, Pinto H A. Positron-emission tomography for surveillance of head and neck cancer.  Laryngoscope. 2005;  115(4) 645-650
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 35 Quon A, Fischbein N J, McDougall I R et al.. Clinical role of 18F-FDG PET/CT in the management of squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck and thyroid carcinoma.  J Nucl Med. 2007;  48(suppl 1) 58S-67S
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 36 Schöder H, Yeung H W. Positron emission imaging of head and neck cancer, including thyroid carcinoma.  Semin Nucl Med. 2004;  34(3) 180-197
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 37 Merritt R M, Williams M F, James T H, Porubsky E S. Detection of cervical metastasis. A meta-analysis comparing computed tomography with physical examination.  Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1997;  123(2) 149-152
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 38 Imhof H, Czerny C, Dirisamer A. Head and neck imaging with MDCT.  Eur J Radiol. 2003;  45(suppl 1) S23-S31
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 39 Velázquez R A, McGuff H S, Sycamore D, Miller F R. The role of computed tomographic scans in the management of the N-positive neck in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma after chemoradiotherapy.  Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2004;  130(1) 74-77
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 40 Hicks R J, Mac Manus M P, Seymour J F. Initial staging of lymphoma with positron emission tomography and computed tomography.  Semin Nucl Med. 2005;  35(3) 165-175
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 41 Reske S N. PET and restaging of malignant lymphoma including residual masses and relapse.  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2003;  30(suppl 1) S89-S96
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 42 La Fougère C, Hundt W, Bröckel N et al.. Value of PET/CT versus PET and CT performed as separate investigations in patients with Hodgkin's disease and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2006;  33(12) 1417-1425
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 43 Freudenberg L S, Antoch G, Schütt P et al.. FDG-PET/CT in re-staging of patients with lymphoma.  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2004;  31(3) 325-329
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 44 Tatsumi M, Cohade C, Nakamoto Y, Fishman E K, Wahl R L. Direct comparison of FDG PET and CT findings in patients with lymphoma: initial experience.  Radiology. 2005;  237(3) 1038-1045
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 45 Mikhaeel N G, Hutchings M, Fields P A, O'Doherty M J, Timothy A R. FDG-PET after two to three cycles of chemotherapy predicts progression-free and overall survival in high-grade non-Hodgkin lymphoma.  Ann Oncol. 2005;  16(9) 1514-1523
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 46 Hutchings M, Mikhaeel N G, Fields P A, Nunan T, Timothy A R. Prognostic value of interim FDG-PET after two or three cycles of chemotherapy in Hodgkin lymphoma.  Ann Oncol. 2005;  16(7) 1160-1168
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 47 Kellenberger C J, Miller S F, Khan M, Gilday D L, Weitzman S, Babyn P S. Initial experience with FSE STIR whole-body MR imaging for staging lymphoma in children.  Eur Radiol. 2004;  14(10) 1829-1841
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 48 Ribrag V, Vanel D, Leboulleux S et al.. Prospective study of bone marrow infiltration in aggressive lymphoma by three independent methods: whole-body MRI, PET/CT and bone marrow biopsy.  Eur J Radiol. 2008;  66(2) 325-331
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 49 Radford J A, Cowan R A, Flanagan M et al.. The significance of residual mediastinal abnormality on the chest radiograph following treatment for Hodgkin's disease.  J Clin Oncol. 1988;  6(6) 940-946
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 50 Surbone A, Longo D L, DeVita Jr V T et al.. Residual abdominal masses in aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after combination chemotherapy: significance and management.  J Clin Oncol. 1988;  6(12) 1832-1837
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 51 Guppy A E, Tebbutt N C, Norman A, Cunningham D. The role of surveillance CT scans in patients with diffuse large B-cell non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.  Leuk Lymphoma. 2003;  44(1) 123-125
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 52 Lavayssière R, Cabée A E, Filmont J E. Positron emission tomography (PET) and breast cancer in clinical practice.  Eur J Radiol. 2009;  69(1) 50-58
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 53 Heusner T A, Kuemmel S, Umutlu L et al.. Breast cancer staging in a single session: whole-body PET/CT mammography.  J Nucl Med. 2008;  49(8) 1215-1222
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 54 Choi J H, Lim H I, Lee S K et al.. The role of PET CT to evaluate the response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in advanced breast cancer: comparison with ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging.  J Surg Oncol. 2009; 
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 55 Fuster D, Duch J, Paredes P et al.. Preoperative staging of large primary breast cancer with [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography compared with conventional imaging procedures.  J Clin Oncol. 2008;  26(29) 4746-4751
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 56 Schmidt G P, Baur-Melnyk A, Haug A et al.. Comprehensive imaging of tumor recurrence in breast cancer patients using whole-body MRI at 1.5 and 3 T compared to FDG-PET-CT.  Eur J Radiol. 2008;  65(1) 47-58
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 57 Engelhard K, Hollenbach H P, Wohlfart K, von Imhoff E, Fellner F A. Comparison of whole-body MRI with automatic moving table technique and bone scintigraphy for screening for bone metastases in patients with breast cancer.  Eur Radiol. 2004;  14(1) 99-105
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 58 Horvath L J, Burtness B A, McCarthy S, Johnson K M. Total-body echo-planar MR imaging in the staging of breast cancer: comparison with conventional methods—early experience.  Radiology. 1999;  211(1) 119-128
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 59 Izzo L, Stasolla A, Basso L et al.. Characterization of tumoral lesions of the breast: preliminary experience with multislice spiral CT.  J Exp Clin Cancer Res. 2005;  24(2) 209-215
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 60 Heusner T A, Kuemmel S, Hahn S et al.. Diagnostic value of full-dose FDG PET/CT for axillary lymph node staging in breast cancer patients.  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2009;  36(10) 1543-1550
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 61 Lindfors K K, Meyer J E, Busse P M, Kopans D B, Munzenrider J E, Sawicka J M. CT evaluation of local and regional breast cancer recurrence.  AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1985;  145(4) 833-837
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 62 Dimopoulos M A, Moulopoulos L A, Terpos E. A new pet for myeloma.  Blood. 2009;  114(10) 2007-2008
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 63 Fonti R, Salvatore B, Quarantelli M et al.. 18F-FDG PET/CT, 99mTc-MIBI, and MRI in evaluation of patients with multiple myeloma.  J Nucl Med. 2008;  49(2) 195-200
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 64 Zamagni E, Nanni C, Patriarca F et al.. A prospective comparison of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging and whole-body planar radiographs in the assessment of bone disease in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.  Haematologica. 2007;  92(1) 50-55
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 65 Ghanem N, Lohrmann C, Engelhardt M et al.. Whole-body MRI in the detection of bone marrow infiltration in patients with plasma cell neoplasms in comparison to the radiological skeletal survey.  Eur Radiol. 2006;  16(5) 1005-1014
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 66 Baur-Melnyk A, Buhmann S, Becker C et al.. Whole-body MRI versus whole-body MDCT for staging of multiple myeloma.  AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008;  190(4) 1097-1104
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 67 Lütje S, de Rooy J W, Croockewit S, Koedam E, Oyen W J, Raymakers R A. Role of radiography, MRI and FDG-PET/CT in diagnosing, staging and therapeutical evaluation of patients with multiple myeloma.  Ann Hematol. 2009;  88(12) 1161-1168
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 68 Nanni C, Zamagni E, Farsad M et al.. Role of 18F-FDG PET/CT in the assessment of bone involvement in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: preliminary results.  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2006;  33(5) 525-531
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 69 Lee I H, Choe Y H, Lee K H, Jeon E S, Choi J H. Comparison of multidetector CT with F-18-FDG-PET and SPECT in the assessment of myocardial viability in patients with myocardial infarction: a preliminary study.  Eur J Radiol. 2009;  72(3) 401-405
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 70 Moulopoulos L A, Gika D, Anagnostopoulos A et al.. Prognostic significance of magnetic resonance imaging of bone marrow in previously untreated patients with multiple myeloma.  Ann Oncol. 2005;  16(11) 1824-1828
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 71 Hillengass J, Wasser K, Delorme S et al.. Lumbar bone marrow microcirculation measurements from dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging is a predictor of event-free survival in progressive multiple myeloma.  Clin Cancer Res. 2007;  13(2 Pt 1) 475-481
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 72 Gleeson T G, Moriarty J, Shortt C P et al.. Accuracy of whole-body low-dose multidetector CT (WBLDCT) versus skeletal survey in the detection of myelomatous lesions, and correlation of disease distribution with whole-body MRI (WBMRI).  Skeletal Radiol. 2009;  38(3) 225-236
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 73 Lowe V J, Booya F, Fletcher J G et al.. Comparison of positron emission tomography, computed tomography, and endoscopic ultrasound in the initial staging of patients with esophageal cancer.  Mol Imaging Biol. 2005;  7(6) 422-430
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 74 Hsu W H, Hsu P K, Wang S J et al.. Positron emission tomography-computed tomography in predicting locoregional invasion in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.  Ann Thorac Surg. 2009;  87(5) 1564-1568
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 75 Bruzzi J F, Munden R F, Truong M T et al.. PET/CT of esophageal cancer: its role in clinical management.  Radiographics. 2007;  27(6) 1635-1652
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 76 Bruzzi J F, Swisher S G, Truong M T et al.. Detection of interval distant metastases: clinical utility of integrated CT-PET imaging in patients with esophageal carcinoma after neoadjuvant therapy.  Cancer. 2007;  109(1) 125-134
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 77 Erasmus J J, Munden R F, Truong M T et al.. Preoperative chemo-radiation-induced ulceration in patients with esophageal cancer: a confounding factor in tumor response assessment in integrated computed tomographic-positron emission tomographic imaging.  J Thorac Oncol. 2006;  1(5) 478-486
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 78 Javeri H, Xiao L, Rohren E et al.. The higher the decrease in the standardized uptake value of positron emission tomography after chemoradiation, the better the survival of patients with gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma.  Cancer. 2009;  115(22) 5184-5192
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 79 Shin S S, Jeong Y Y, Min J J, Kim H R, Chung T W, Kang H K. Preoperative staging of colorectal cancer: CT vs. integrated FDG PET/CT.  Abdom Imaging. 2008;  33(3) 270-277
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 80 Gollub M J, Akhurst T, Markowitz A J et al.. Combined CT colonography and 18F-FDG PET of colon polyps: potential technique for selective detection of cancer and precancerous lesions.  AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007;  188(1) 130-138
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 81 Mainenti P P, Salvatore B, D'Antonio D et al.. PET/CT colonography in patients with colorectal polyps: a feasibility study.  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2007;  34(10) 1594-1603
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 82 Kitajima K, Murakami K, Yamasaki E et al.. Performance of integrated FDG PET/contrast-enhanced CT in the diagnosis of recurrent colorectal cancer: comparison with integrated FDG PET/non-contrast-enhanced CT and enhanced CT.  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2009;  36(9) 1388-1396
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 83 Squillaci E, Manenti G, Mancino S et al.. Staging of colon cancer: whole-body MRI vs. whole-body PET-CT—initial clinical experience.  Abdom Imaging. 2008;  33(6) 676-688
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 84 Sakurada A, Takahara T, Kwee T C et al.. Diagnostic performance of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in esophageal cancer.  Eur Radiol. 2009;  19(6) 1461-1469
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 85 Schöder H, Larson S M, Yeung H W. PET/CT in oncology: integration into clinical management of lymphoma, melanoma, and gastrointestinal malignancies.  J Nucl Med. 2004;  45(suppl 1) 72S-81S
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 86 Furukawa H, Ikuma H, Seki A et al.. Positron emission tomography scanning is not superior to whole body multidetector helical computed tomography in the preoperative staging of colorectal cancer.  Gut. 2006;  55(7) 1007-1011
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 87 Hofer C, Laubenbacher C, Block T, Breul J, Hartung R, Schwaiger M. Fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography is useless for the detection of local recurrence after radical prostatectomy.  Eur Urol. 1999;  36(1) 31-35
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 88 Effert P J, Bares R, Handt S, Wolff J M, Büll U, Jakse G. Metabolic imaging of untreated prostate cancer by positron emission tomography with 18fluorine-labeled deoxyglucose.  J Urol. 1996;  155(3) 994-998
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 89 Shreve P D, Grossman H B, Gross M D, Wahl R L. Metastatic prostate cancer: initial findings of PET with 2-deoxy-2-[F-18]fluoro-D-glucose.  Radiology. 1996;  199(3) 751-756
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 90 Seltzer M A, Barbaric Z, Belldegrun A et al.. Comparison of helical computerized tomography, positron emission tomography and monoclonal antibody scans for evaluation of lymph node metastases in patients with prostate specific antigen relapse after treatment for localized prostate cancer.  J Urol. 1999;  162(4) 1322-1328
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 91 Schmid D T, John H, Zweifel R et al.. Fluorocholine PET/CT in patients with prostate cancer: initial experience.  Radiology. 2005;  235(2) 623-628
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 92 Reske S N, Deisenhofer S. Is 3′-deoxy-3′-(18)F-fluorothymidine a better marker for tumour response than (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose?.  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2006;  33(suppl 1) 38-43
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 93 Scher B, Seitz M, Albinger W et al.. Value of 11C-choline PET and PET/CT in patients with suspected prostate cancer.  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2007;  34(1) 45-53
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 94 Eschmann S M, Pfannenberg A C, Rieger A et al.. Comparison of 11C-choline-PET/CT and whole body-MRI for staging of prostate cancer.  Nucl Med (Stuttg). 2007;  46(5) 161-168; quiz N47–N48
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 95 Engeler C E, Wasserman N F, Zhang G. Preoperative assessment of prostatic carcinoma by computerized tomography. Weaknesses and new perspectives.  Urology. 1992;  40(4) 346-350
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 96 Pfannenberg C, Aschoff P, Schanz S et al.. Prospective comparison of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography and whole-body magnetic resonance imaging in staging of advanced malignant melanoma.  Eur J Cancer. 2007;  43(3) 557-564
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 97 Strobel K, Dummer R, Steinert H C et al.. Chemotherapy response assessment in stage IV melanoma patients-comparison of 18F-FDG-PET/CT, CT, brain MRI, and tumormarker S-100B.  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2008;  35(10) 1786-1795
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 98 Müller-Horvat C, Radny P, Eigentler T K et al.. Prospective comparison of the impact on treatment decisions of whole-body magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography in patients with metastatic malignant melanoma.  Eur J Cancer. 2006;  42(3) 342-350
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 99 Holder Jr W D, White Jr R L, Zuger J H, Easton Jr E J, Greene F L. Effectiveness of positron emission tomography for the detection of melanoma metastases.  Ann Surg. 1998;  227(5) 764-769; discussion 769–771
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 100 Swetter S M, Carroll L A, Johnson D L, Segall G M. Positron emission tomography is superior to computed tomography for metastatic detection in melanoma patients.  Ann Surg Oncol. 2002;  9(7) 646-653
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 101 Lauenstein T C, Semelka R C. Emerging techniques: whole-body screening and staging with MRI.  J Magn Reson Imaging. 2006;  24(3) 489-498
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 102 Morin S H, Cobbold J F, Lim A K et al.. Incidental findings in healthy control research subjects using whole-body MRI.  Eur J Radiol. 2009;  72(3) 529-533
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 103 Goehde S C, Hunold P, Vogt F M et al.. Full-body cardiovascular and tumor MRI for early detection of disease: feasibility and initial experience in 298 subjects.  AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005;  184(2) 598-611
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 104 Brenner D J, Elliston C D. Estimated radiation risks potentially associated with full-body CT screening.  Radiology. 2004;  232(3) 735-738
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 105 Furtado C D, Aguirre D A, Sirlin C B et al.. Whole-body CT screening: spectrum of findings and recommendations in 1192 patients.  Radiology. 2005;  237(2) 385-394
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 106 Obuchowski N A, Holden D, Modic M T et al.. Total-body screening: preliminary results of a pilot randomized controlled trial.  J Am Coll Radiol. 2007;  4(9) 604-611
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 107 Beinfeld M T, Wittenberg E, Gazelle G S. Cost-effectiveness of whole-body CT screening.  Radiology. 2005;  234(2) 415-422
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 108 Schöder H, Gönen M. Screening for cancer with PET and PET/CT: potential and limitations.  J Nucl Med. 2007;  48(suppl 1) 4S-18S
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 109 Antoch G, Bockisch A. Combined PET/MRI: a new dimension in whole-body oncology imaging?.  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2009;  36(suppl 1) S113-S120
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 110 Frericks B B, Meyer B C, Martus P, Wendt M, Wolf K J, Wacker F. MRI of the thorax during whole-body MRI: evaluation of different MR sequences and comparison to thoracic multidetector computed tomography (MDCT).  J Magn Reson Imaging. 2008;  27(3) 538-545
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 111 Lichy M P, Aschoff P, Plathow C et al.. Tumor detection by diffusion-weighted MRI and ADC-mapping—initial clinical experiences in comparison to PET-CT.  Invest Radiol. 2007;  42(9) 605-613
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 112 Mürtz P, Krautmacher C, Träber F, Gieseke J, Schild H H, Willinek W A. Diffusion-weighted whole-body MR imaging with background body signal suppression: a feasibility study at 3.0 Tesla.  Eur Radiol. 2007;  17(12) 3031-3037
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 113 Rappeport E D, Loft A, Berthelsen A K et al.. Contrast-enhanced FDG-PET/CT vs. SPIO-enhanced MRI vs. FDG-PET vs. CT in patients with liver metastases from colorectal cancer: a prospective study with intraoperative confirmation.  Acta Radiol. 2007;  48(4) 369-378
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar

Fiona CartyM.B. 

Department of Radiology, Cappagh National Orthopaedic Hospital

Finglas, Dublin 11, Ireland

Email: fcarty@gmail.com