Purpose: To review the existing literature on PET/MR for musculoskeletal malignancies. Methods: PubMed (MEDLINE) was searched through July 2021. The search strategy focused on the keywords “PET/CT”, “PET/MR”, “MRI”, “attenuation correction”, “sarcoma”, “skeletal”, “metastases”, “myeloma”, “FDG”, “Sodium fluoride”, “PSMA”, “DOTATATE”, “fluciclovine”, and “FAPI”. Results: 97 relevant papers were considered for review. Studies selected were primarily retrospective and prospective cohort studies. There is limited literature comparing PET/CT to PET/MR for evaluation of primary musculoskeletal malignancies and musculoskeletal metastatic disease. Most studies involve relatively small numbers of patients. Conclusions: Despite limited evidence and the lack of widespread application, PET/MR is a promising imaging technique for evaluating musculoskeletal malignancies. This is owing primarily to the strength of its constituent modalities. PET permits for acquisition of metabolic information using a variety of emerging novel radiopharmaceuticals. MR allows for assessment of bone marrow and for identification and characterization of soft-tissue lesions. Selection of appropriate radiopharmaceutical and MR protocol parameters is key for optimal evaluation. Although PET/MR has shown promise in evaluation of musculoskeletal involvement of multiple malignancies, it has not yet demonstrated broad superior to PET/CT. More research is needed to understand its value in the care of patients with such diseases.
PET/MR for evaluation of musculoskeletal malignancies
Evangelista L.;
2022-01-01
Abstract
Purpose: To review the existing literature on PET/MR for musculoskeletal malignancies. Methods: PubMed (MEDLINE) was searched through July 2021. The search strategy focused on the keywords “PET/CT”, “PET/MR”, “MRI”, “attenuation correction”, “sarcoma”, “skeletal”, “metastases”, “myeloma”, “FDG”, “Sodium fluoride”, “PSMA”, “DOTATATE”, “fluciclovine”, and “FAPI”. Results: 97 relevant papers were considered for review. Studies selected were primarily retrospective and prospective cohort studies. There is limited literature comparing PET/CT to PET/MR for evaluation of primary musculoskeletal malignancies and musculoskeletal metastatic disease. Most studies involve relatively small numbers of patients. Conclusions: Despite limited evidence and the lack of widespread application, PET/MR is a promising imaging technique for evaluating musculoskeletal malignancies. This is owing primarily to the strength of its constituent modalities. PET permits for acquisition of metabolic information using a variety of emerging novel radiopharmaceuticals. MR allows for assessment of bone marrow and for identification and characterization of soft-tissue lesions. Selection of appropriate radiopharmaceutical and MR protocol parameters is key for optimal evaluation. Although PET/MR has shown promise in evaluation of musculoskeletal involvement of multiple malignancies, it has not yet demonstrated broad superior to PET/CT. More research is needed to understand its value in the care of patients with such diseases.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
