This educational talk provides an overview of PET/MRI in the evaluation of prostate cancer with a focus on the strengths and weaknesses of PET/MRI versus PET/CT as well as the individual strengths and weaknesses of MRI versus PET. This talk also discusses methods for evaluating initial staging as well as biochemical recurrence in prostate cancer patients and discusses current progress made in the radiopharmaceutical field and its ability to synergize with emerging methods in MRI.
1. To discuss the different types of PET/MRI imaging systems.
2. To discuss the strengths and weaknesses of PET and MRI as individual modalities in the evaluation of prostate cancer.
3. To compare the strengths and weaknesses of simultaneous PET/MRI with PET/CT in the evaluation of prostate cancer with emphasis on MR-based attenuation correction of soft tissue and osseous lesions.
4. To discuss methods for imaging prostate cancer at initial staging and at biochemical recurrence with PET/MRI.
5. To illustrate the strengths of PET/MRI in prostate cancer with case examples using different radiopharmaceuticals.
6. To discuss the progress made in developing clinical radiopharmaceuticals for prostate cancer.
1. PET and MRI are both complementary and synergistic. Although anatomic detail and spatial resolution are suboptimal with PET and sensitivity is suboptimal with MRI, these limitations are overcome when the two modalities are combined.
2. PET/MRI offers several advantages over PET/CT, including reduced radiation exposure, better lesion detection, applicability to numerous molecular and functional imaging techniques, and improved reader confidence.
3. PET/CT still holds some advantages over PET/MRI including better osseous lesion quantification, faster scanning time, instrument availability, and insurance reimbursement in some cases.
4. PET/MRI protocols can be optimized differently to evaluate for initial staging versus disease recurrence.
1. Rosenkrantz AB, et al. AJR American Journal of Roentgenology. 2016;206(1):162-172.
2. Lindenberg L, et al. Semin Nucl Med. 2016; Nov;46(6):536-543
3. Stecco A, et al. Radiol Med. 2016;Jun;121(6):502-509
4. Kitajima K, et al. Clin Imaging. 2014; Jul-Aug;38(4):464-469.
5. Grueneisen J, et al. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015; Nov;42(12):1814-1824.
6. Queiroz MA, et al. Eur Radiol. 2015; Aug;25(8):2222-30.