The Development and Application of Hybrid Imaging Systems Combining PET/MRI for Comprehensive Cancer Detection and Treatment Planning
Keywords:
PET/MRI, Hybrid Imaging Systems, Cancer Detection, Treatment Planning, Multimodal Imaging, Oncology Imaging, Molecular Imaging, Diagnostic RadiologyAbstract
Hybrid imaging systems that integrate Positron Emission Tomography (PET) and Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) have emerged as powerful diagnostic tools in oncology. These systems combine the metabolic sensitivity of PET with the superior soft-tissue contrast of MRI, enabling comprehensive cancer detection, characterization, and therapy planning. This paper provides an overview of the development and clinical application of PET/MRI hybrid systems, supported by recent literature. We examine technological advancements, imaging workflows, clinical benefits, and challenges associated with their use. The integration of anatomical and functional imaging facilitates more accurate tumor staging and personalized treatment strategies, especially in neuro-oncology, prostate, and head and neck cancers. The review highlights key studies that support PET/MRI’s role in precision oncology and outlines future research directions to optimize its diagnostic potential.
References
[1] Quick, H. H., et al. “Integrated Whole-Body PET/MR: Physiological, Technical, and Clinical Aspects.” NMR in Biomedicine, vol. 26, no. 6, 2013, pp. 259–272.
[2] Catana, C., et al. “PET–MRI for Neurologic Applications.” Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 53, no. 12, 2012, pp. 1916–1925.
[3] Eiber, M., et al. “Evaluation of Hybrid 68Ga-PSMA Ligand PET/MRI in Prostate Cancer.” European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, vol. 43, no. 1, 2016, pp. 70–77.
[4] Paldino, M. J., et al. “PET/MRI in Pediatric Brain Tumors: Initial Clinical Experience.” AJNR American Journal of Neuroradiology, vol. 35, no. 6, 2014, pp. 1103–1109.
[5] Becker, M., et al. “Hybrid PET/MRI in Head and Neck Cancer: Potential and Challenges.” Clinical Imaging, vol. 59, 2020, pp. 59–65.
[6] Hofmann, M., et al. “MRI-Based Attenuation Correction for PET/MRI: A Review.” European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, vol. 38, no. 1, 2011, pp. 1–16.
[7] Afshar-Oromieh, A., et al. “PET/MRI vs. PET/CT in Prostate Cancer: A Prospective Comparison.” European Journal of Radiology, vol. 89, 2017, pp. 125–131.
[8] Shao, W., et al. “Value of Integrated PET/MRI in Glioma Assessment.” Journal of Neuro-Oncology, vol. 158, no. 3, 2022, pp. 421–429.
[9] Bailey, D. L., Pichler, B. J., Gückel, B., and Barthel, H. “PET/MRI: Technology and Applications in Clinical Oncology.” The British Journal of Radiology, vol. 91, no. 1081, 2018, p. 20170576.
[10] Jadvar, H., and Colletti, P. M. “Competitive Advantage of PET/MRI.” European Journal of Radiology, vol. 83, no. 1, 2014, pp. 84–94.
[11] Koo, H. J., et al. “Head-to-Head Comparison of PET/CT and PET/MRI for Detection of Recurrent Cervical Cancer: A Prospective Study.” European Radiology, vol. 30, no. 5, 2020, pp. 2563–2571.
[12] Paulus, D. H., et al. “Whole-Body PET/MRI with Simultaneous Acquisition for Oncology: A Consensus Paper by the EANM, SNMMI, and ISMRM.” European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, vol. 42, no. 1, 2015, pp. 1–5.
