Abstract
The latest version of positron emission tomography (PET) imaging systems is the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) integrated PET device. The integration process of these two separate modalities, both of which are the most powerful in their respective fields and clinical acceptance of this combination has been quite painful and slow compared to PET/computed tomography (PET/CT), and the process still continues to mature. Having superior tissue contrast due to its multiparametric imaging ability and high soft tissue resolution together with excluding ionizing radiation are the most important advantages of MRI, and hybrid PET/MRI systems differ from PET/CT with these features. In addition, since both modalities can work simultaneously in PET/MRI, it is less affected by internal organ movements and provides a more effective fusion image. Moreover, although the adaptation process to MRI technology and imaging interpretation may seem somewhat difficult for Nuclear Medicine physicians, it is obvious that it will create new excitements and horizons. In this context, in this section, we tried to present the basic working principles of MRI and the basic principles of evaluating MRI from the perspective of a nuclear medicine physician.
Keywords: PET/MRI, hybrid imaging, MRI interpretation
References
Peng L, Chen B, Yu E, et al. The application value of LAVA-flex sequences in enhanced MRI scans of nasopharyngeal carcinoma: comparison with T1WI-IDEAL. Front Oncol. 2024;14:1320280.
Morani AC, Elsayes KM, Liu PS, et al. Abdominal applications of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging: Where do we stand. World J Radiol. 2013;5:68-80.
Ahn JH, Yu JS, Cho ES, Chung JJ, Kim JH, Kim KW. Diffusion-weighted MRI of malignant versus benign portal vein thrombosis. Korean J Radiol. 2016;17:533-540.
Catana C, Guimaraes AR, Rosen BR. PET and MR imaging: the odd couple or a match made in heaven? J Nucl Med. 2013;54:815-824.
Hofmann M, Pichler B, Schölkopf B, Beyer T. Towards quantitative PET/MRI: a review of MR-based attenuation correction techniques. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2009;36 Suppl 1:S93-S104.
Petralia G, Padhani AR, and Pricolo P, et al. Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging (WB-MRI) in oncology: recommendations and key uses. Radiol Med. 2019;124:218-233.
Summers Paul, Saia Giulia, Colombo Alberto, et al. Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging: technique, guidelines and key applications. Ecancermedicalscience. 2021;15:1164.
Messiou C, Hillengass J, and Delorme S, et al. Guidelines for acquisition, ınterpretation, and reporting of whole-body MRI in myeloma: Myeloma Response Assessment and Diagnosis System (MY-RADS). Radiology. 2019;291:5-13.
Padhani AR, Lecouvet FE, Tunariu N, et al. METastasis Reporting and Data System for prostate cancer: practical guidelines for acquisition, ınterpretation, and reporting of whole-body magnetic resonance ımaging-based evaluations of multiorgan ınvolvement in advanced prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2017;71:81-92.
Fowler KJ, McConathy J, Narra VR. Whole-body simultaneous positron emission tomography (PET)-MR: optimization and adaptation of MRI sequences. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2014;39:259-268.
Takenaka D, Ohno Y, Matsumoto K, et al. Detection of bone metastases in non-small cell lung cancer patients: comparison of whole-body diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), whole-body MR imaging without and with DWI, whole-body FDG-PET/CT, and bone scintigraphy. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2009;30:298-308.
Abdulqadhr G, Molin D, Astrom G, et al. Whole-body diffusion-weighted imaging compared with FDG-PET/CT in staging of lymphoma patients. Acta Radiol. 2011;52:173-180.
Kekelidze M, D'Errico L, Pansini M, Tyndall A, Hohmann J. Colorectal cancer: current imaging methods and future perspectives for the diagnosis, staging and therapeutic response evaluation. World J Gastroenterol. 2013;19:8502-8514.
Noij DP, Boerhout EJ, Pieters-van den Bos IC, et al. Whole-body-MR imaging including DWIBS in the work-up of patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: a feasibility study. Eur J Radiol. 2014;83:1144-1151.
Queiroz MA, Hullner M, Kuhn F, et al. Use of diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) in PET/MRI for head and neck cancer evaluation. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;41:2212-2221.
Bray TJ, Chouhan MD, Punwani S, Bainbridge A, Hall-Craggs MA. Fat fraction mapping using magnetic resonance imaging: insight into pathophysiology. Br J Radiol. 2018;91:20170344.
Park SY, Kim CK, Park BK, Kwon GY. Comparison of apparent diffusion coefficient calculation between two-point and multipoint B value analyses in prostate cancer and benign prostate tissue at 3 T: preliminary experience. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2014;203:W287-94.
Blackledge MD, Tunariu N, Orton MR, et al. Inter- and Intra-observer repeatability of quantitative whole-body, diffusion-weighted ımaging (WBDWI) in metastatic bone disease. PLoS One. 2016;11:e0153840.
Helenius J, Soinne L, Perkiö J, et al. Diffusion-weighted MR imaging in normal human brains in various age groups. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2002;23:194-199.
Annet L, Duprez T, Grandin C, Dooms G, Collard A, Cosnard G. Apparent diffusion coefficient measurements within intracranial epidermoid cysts in six patients. Neuroradiology. 2002;44:326-328.
Hilario A, Ramos A, Perez-Nuñez A, et al. The added value of apparent diffusion coefficient to cerebral blood volume in the preoperative grading of diffuse gliomas. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2012;33:701-707.
Tamai K, Koyama T, Saga T, et al. The utility of diffusion-weighted MR imaging for differentiating uterine sarcomas from benign leiomyomas. Eur Radiol. 2008;18:723-730.
Fujii S, Matsusue E, Kigawa J, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of the apparent diffusion coefficient in differentiating benign from malignant uterine endometrial cavity lesions: initial results. Eur Radiol. 2008;18:384-389.
