Onofrio Antonio Catalano MD, Presenter: RSNA travel expenses covered by Siemens HealthCare

Bruce R. Rosen MD, PhD, Abstract Co-Author: Research Consultant, Siemens AG

Dushyant V. Sahani MD, Abstract Co-Author: Research Grant, General Electric Company

Carlo Iannace MD, Abstract Co-Author: Nothing to Disclose

Angelo Luongo, Abstract Co-Author: Nothing to Disclose

Marco Catalano, Abstract Co-Author: Nothing to Disclose

Mark Vangel PhD, Abstract Co-Author: Nothing to Disclose

Marco Aiello, Abstract Co-Author: Nothing to Disclose

Emanuele Nicolai, Abstract Co-Author: Nothing to Disclose

Alexander Ramos Guimaraes MD, PhD, Abstract Co-Author: Speakers Bureau, Siemens AG Expert Witness, Rice, Dolan, Kershaw

Andrea Soricelli MD, Abstract Co-Author: Nothing to Disclose

Marco Salvatore MD, Abstract Co-Author: Nothing to Disclose

To compare the diagnostic performance of whole-body PET/MR with PET/CT in patients followed up for treated breast cancer

76 consecutive patients with treated breast cancer underwent whole-body FDG-PET/CT (Gemini TF, Philips) and same day FDG-PET/MR (Biograph mMR, Siemens). Two readers independently evaluated PET/CT and PET/MR studies for local recurrence as well as metastases according to published imaging criteria 

5 patients were excluded due to data corruption, 1 because of study interruption. MRPET quality was adequate in the remaining 70 patients. PET/MR and PET/CT were concordant in 59 patients, ruling out recurrent disease/metastases in 24 and disclosing recurrent disease or metastases in 35. PET/MR and PET/CT were discordant in: in 4 PET/MR disclosed metastases not detected at PET/CT, in 1 PET/MR demonstrated local recurrence not seen on PET/CT. In 5 PET/MR correctly interpreted benign findings (sarcoidosis in 1, benign pelvic disease in 1, benign bony lesions in 3) confused with metastases on PET/CT. PET/CT demonstrated sclerotic bony lesion in 1 that was missed at PET/MR, however comparison with prior CT dating back to 4 years ago showed stability and therefore it was interpreted as a benign lesion  

PET/MR imaging of treated breast cancer is feasible and provides diagnostic image quality in the assessment of possible local recurrent disease as well as metastases. PET/MR did not under-stage any patient when compared to PET/CT and provided the correct diagnosis for all 11 discordant cases (95% binomial upper confidence limit 0.24)  

PET/MR might represent an innovative and valid tool for accurate follow up of breast cancer patients

Catalano, O, Rosen, B, Sahani, D, Iannace, C, Luongo, A, Catalano, M, Vangel, M, Aiello, M, Nicolai, E, Guimaraes, A, Soricelli, A, Salvatore, M, Breast Cancer Follow Up: Comparison of Whole-body Hybrid PET/MR and PET/CT Imaging: Initial Experience.  Radiological Society of North America 2014 Scientific Assembly and Annual Meeting, - ,Chicago IL. http://archive.rsna.org/2014/14012831.html