Diagnostic performance of different imaging modalities in the assessment of distant metastasis and local recurrence of tumor in patients with non-small cell lung cancer

Purpose To compare the diagnostic performance of positron emission tomography with [18F] fluoro-2-deoxy-glucose (FDG-PET) coregistered with magnetic resonance imaging (FDG-PET/MRI), MRI with and without diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), FDG-PET fused with computed tomography (FDG-PET/CT) with brain contrast-enhanced (CE-) MRI, and routine radiological examination for assessment of postoperative recurrence in nonsmall-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. Materials and Methods 96 consecutive postoperative NSCLC patients (52 men, 44 women; mean age 72 years) prospectively underwent whole-body 3T MRI with and without DWI; PET/CTs and routine radiological examinations consisted of CE-brain MRI, whole-body CE-CT, and bone scintigraphy. The patients were divided into a recurrence (n = 17) and a nonrecurrence (n = 79) group based on pathological and follow-up examinations. All coregistered PET/MRIs were generated by proprietary software. The probability of recurrence was visually assessed on a per-patient basis. Receiver operating characteristic analyses were used to compare the diagnostic performance of all methods. Finally, diagnostic capabilities were compared by means of McNemar's test. Results Areas under the curves (Azs) were significantly larger for PET/MRI and whole-body MRI with DWI (Az = 0.99) than for PET/CT (Az = 0.92, P < 0.05) and conventional radiological examination (Az = 0.91, P < 0.05). Specificity and accuracy of PET/MRI and MRI with and without DWI were significantly higher than those of PET/CT (P < 0.05) and routine radiological examination (P < 0.05). Conclusion Whole-body FDG-PET/MRI and MRI with DWI were found to be more specific and accurate than FDG-PET/CT and routine radiological examinations for assessment of recurrence in NSCLC patients, although MRI with and without DWI demonstrated slightly lower sensitivity than PET/CT. Level of Evidence: 2 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2017;46:1707–1717.