Nowadays, a
variety of imaging modalities are available for lung cancer imaging such as CT,
MRI, PET/CT and lately also the new hybrid modality PET/MRI. From a technical
point of view, PET/MRI differs from PET/CT in several ways: in PET/MRI, the most commonly used technical approach
integrates the PET component in the MR scanner which allows for simultaneous
acquisition of PET and MRI data. This is advantageous because the
co-registration of PET and MRI datasets is improved and image-based motion
correction methods are achievable without the need of additional devices such
as breathing belts or external markers or cameras (1, 2). Another significant difference is
the attenuation correction of the PET data which is based on MRI data. This can
lead to underestimations of PET quantification since bone is ignored in the
attenuation correction, at least for whole body imaging (3-5). For brain imaging vendors have
begun to establish so-called atlas-based methods which improve the PET
quantification, but this technique is not commercially available for whole body
and lung imaging up to now.
In 2015,
the European Society of Radiology discussed the role of imaging in personalized
medicine in a white paper (6). Here, several aspects of
personalized medicine are named which are important: prevention (e.g.
screening), imaging in the section of treatment (location and extent of
disease, prognostic and predictive biomarkers, radiomics/radiogenomics) as well
as evaluation of treatment response and personalized treatment (radiotherapy,
interventional radiology). In the following, we will focus on imaging in the
section of treatment. Concerning location and extent of disease in lung cancer,
CT is widely used and often the first imaging modality to select the
appropriate procedure. However, CT offers only limited sensitivity and
specificity for identifying lymph node metastases (7) and distant metastatic disease. In
contrast, PET/CT with fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG) offers superior
information for lymph node staging and distant metastases (8, 9). Most importantly, it could be
shown that the rate of unnecessary surgery could be significantly reduced if FDG-PET
was added to workup (10). MRI is the modality of choice to
examine the brachial plexus in superior sulcus tumors and to identify brain and
liver lesions (11-13). However, for small lung nodules
< 5 mm, MRI is still limited (14, 15). The same holds true for FDG-PET/MRI
concerning the detection of small lung nodules. However, first patient studies
showed a similar diagnostic performance of FDG-PET/MR compared to FDG-PET/CT in
primary lung cancer staging (16-18) but larger prospective studies concerning
PET/MR in lung cancer staging are still missing.
An emerging
field is radiomics and radiogenomics where textural parameters have to be
calculated. These can be derived from statistical approaches which are most
commonly used but also from model-based (i.e. fractal analysis) or
transformation-methods (i.e. Fourier, wavelet transforms) (19). For this purpose, several software
solutions have been published (20-22). In radiogenomics the textural
information is correlated with gene expression-patterns to assess prognostic
phenotypes. In future, this approach could improve decision-making in cancer
treatment. Most textural data is published in CT with up to 440 image features describing
the tumor phenotype (23, 24). Studies investigating the use of
textural data in MRI are still very limited. Up to now, no textural analyses
have been performed with FDG-PET/MR data for lung cancer so far, but results
from other malignancies such as glioma are promising (25). First studies aiming at tumor
characterization of lung cancer using PET/MRI investigated voxelwise
correlation of multiparametric imaging to identify regions of interest within
tumors (26, 27). Here, the local information is not
lost which could be a starting point for biopsy planning or radiation planning.
Lately, first studies investigate the use of textural PET and CT parameters in
prognosis: it could be shown that certain textural features in pre-treatment FDG-PET/CT
are correlated with an increased risk of local recurrence (28).
In
conclusion, in lung cancer, CT is well established and the method of choice for
first evaluation in the clinical workup, but also for texture analysis. The
hybrid modality FDG-PET/CT is superior in staging especially for lymph node
staging and distant metastases. The number of radiomics/radiogenomics studies
is still limited in FDG-PET/CT. MRI offers helpful information for dedicated
staging situations but is limited in the detection for small lung nodules. The
new hybrid modality PET/MRI is still in its infancy but promising due to the
huge amount of functional methods.
References
1. Fayad
H, Odille F, Schmidt H, Wurslin C, Kustner T, Feblinger J, et al. The use of a generalized reconstruction by inversion of coupled
systems (GRICS) approach for generic respiratory motion correction in PET/MR imaging.
Physics in medicine and biology. 2015;60(6):2529-46.
2. Wurslin 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. Journal of nuclear medicine : official
publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine. 2013;54(3):464-71.
3. Keereman V, Holen
RV, Mollet P, Vandenberghe S. The effect of errors in segmented attenuation
maps on PET quantification. Medical physics. 2011;38(11):6010-9.
4. Martinez-Moller
A, Souvatzoglou M, Delso G, Bundschuh RA, Chefd'hotel C, Ziegler SI, et al.
Tissue classification as a potential approach for attenuation correction in
whole-body PET/MRI: evaluation with PET/CT data. Journal of nuclear medicine :
official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine. 2009;50(4):520-6.
5. Schulz V,
Torres-Espallardo I, Renisch S, Hu Z, Ojha N, Bornert P, et al. Automatic,
three-segment, MR-based attenuation correction for whole-body PET/MR data.
European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging. 2011;38(1):138-52.
6. Medical imaging
in personalised medicine: a white paper of the research committee of the
European Society of Radiology (ESR). Insights into imaging. 2015;6(2):141-55.
7. Silvestri GA,
Gonzalez AV, Jantz MA, Margolis ML, Gould MK, Tanoue LT, et al. Methods for
staging non-small cell lung cancer: Diagnosis and management of lung cancer,
3rd ed: American College of Chest Physicians evidence-based clinical practice
guidelines. Chest. 2013;143(5 Suppl):e211S-50S.
8. Gupta NC, Tamim
WJ, Graeber GG, Bishop HA, Hobbs GR. Mediastinal lymph node sampling following
positron emission tomography with fluorodeoxyglucose imaging in lung cancer
staging. Chest. 2001;120(2):521-7.
9. Wu Y, Li P, Zhang
H, Shi Y, Wu H, Zhang J, et al. Diagnostic value of fluorine 18
fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography for the
detection of metastases in non-small-cell lung cancer patients. International
journal of cancer Journal international du cancer. 2013;132(2):E37-47.
10. van
Tinteren H, Hoekstra OS, Smit EF, van den Bergh JH, Schreurs AJ, Stallaert RA,
et al. Effectiveness of positron emission tomography in
the preoperative assessment of patients with suspected non-small-cell lung
cancer: the PLUS multicentre randomised trial. Lancet (London, England).
2002;359(9315):1388-93.
11. Bruzzi JF, Komaki
R, Walsh GL, Truong MT, Gladish GW, Munden RF, et al. Imaging of non-small cell
lung cancer of the superior sulcus: part 1: anatomy, clinical manifestations,
and management. Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society
of North America, Inc. 2008;28(2):551-60; quiz 620.
12. Wu LM, Xu JR, Gu
HY, Hua J, Chen J, Zhang W, et al. Preoperative mediastinal and hilar nodal
staging with diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging and
fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography in patients
with non-small-cell lung cancer: which is better? The Journal of surgical
research. 2012;178(1):304-14.
13. Yi CA, Shin KM,
Lee KS, Kim BT, Kim H, Kwon OJ, et al. Non-small cell lung cancer staging:
efficacy comparison of integrated PET/CT versus 3.0-T whole-body MR imaging.
Radiology. 2008;248(2):632-42.
14. 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. Journal
of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI. 2016;43(2):504-11.
15. Rauscher I, Eiber
M, Furst 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. Journal of nuclear medicine :
official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine. 2014;55(5):724-9.
16. 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. European journal of nuclear
medicine and molecular imaging. 2015;42(1):49-55.
17. Heusch
P, Buchbender C, Kohler J, Nensa F, Gauler T, Gomez B, et al. Thoracic staging in lung cancer: prospective comparison of 18F-FDG
PET/MR imaging and 18F-FDG PET/CT. Journal of nuclear medicine : official
publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine. 2014;55(3):373-8.
18. Schwenzer
NF, Schraml C, Muller M, Brendle C, Sauter A, Spengler W, et al. Pulmonary lesion assessment: comparison of whole-body hybrid MR/PET
and PET/CT imaging--pilot study. Radiology. 2012;264(2):551-8.
19. Tixier F, Le Rest
CC, Hatt M, Albarghach N, Pradier O, Metges JP, et al. Intratumor heterogeneity
characterized by textural features on baseline 18F-FDG PET images predicts
response to concomitant radiochemotherapy in esophageal cancer. Journal of
nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.
2011;52(3):369-78.
20. Ganeshan B, Goh V,
Mandeville HC, Ng QS, Hoskin PJ, Miles KA. Non-small cell lung cancer:
histopathologic correlates for texture parameters at CT. Radiology.
2013;266(1):326-36.
21. Zhang L, Fried DV,
Fave XJ, Hunter LA, Yang J, Court LE. IBEX: an open infrastructure software
platform to facilitate collaborative work in radiomics. Medical physics.
2015;42(3):1341-53.
22. Jayender J,
Chikarmane S, Jolesz FA, Gombos E. Automatic segmentation of invasive breast
carcinomas from dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI using time series analysis.
Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI. 2014;40(2):467-75.
23. Aerts HJ,
Velazquez ER, Leijenaar RT, Parmar C, Grossmann P, Carvalho S, et al. Decoding
tumour phenotype by noninvasive imaging using a quantitative radiomics
approach. Nature communications. 2014;5:4006.
24. Balagurunathan Y,
Gu Y, Wang H, Kumar V, Grove O, Hawkins S, et al. Reproducibility and Prognosis
of Quantitative Features Extracted from CT Images. Translational oncology.
2014;7(1):72-87.
25. Ryu YJ, Choi SH,
Park SJ, Yun TJ, Kim JH, Sohn CH. Glioma: application of whole-tumor texture
analysis of diffusion-weighted imaging for the evaluation of tumor
heterogeneity. PloS one. 2014;9(9):e108335.
26. Metz
S, Ganter C, Lorenzen S, van Marwick S, Holzapfel K, Herrmann K, et al. Multiparametric MR and PET Imaging of Intratumoral Biological
Heterogeneity in Patients with Metastatic Lung Cancer Using Voxel-by-Voxel
Analysis. PloS one. 2015;10(7):e0132386.
27. Schmidt H, Brendle
C, Schraml C, Martirosian P, Bezrukov I, Hetzel J, et al. Correlation of
simultaneously acquired diffusion-weighted imaging and 2-deoxy-[18F] fluoro-2-D-glucose
positron emission tomography of pulmonary lesions in a dedicated whole-body
magnetic resonance/positron emission tomography system. Investigative radiology. 2013;48(5):247-55.
28. Pyka T, Bundschuh RA, Andratschke N,
Mayer B, Specht HM, Papp L, et al. Textural features in
pre-treatment [F18]-FDG-PET/CT are correlated with risk of local recurrence and
disease-specific survival in early stage NSCLC patients receiving primary
stereotactic radiation therapy. Radiation oncology (London, England).
2015;10:100.