% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded. This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.
@ARTICLE{daSilva:132908,
author = {N. A. da Silva and P. Lohmann and J. Fairney and A.
Magill$^*$ and A.-M. Oros Peusquens and C.-H. Choi and R.
Stirnberg and G. Stoffels and N. Galldiks and X. Golay and
K.-J. Langen and N. Jon Shah},
title = {{H}ybrid {MR}-{PET} of brain tumours using amino acid {PET}
and chemical exchange saturation transfer {MRI}.},
journal = {European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging},
volume = {45},
number = {6},
issn = {1619-7089},
address = {Heidelberg [u.a.]},
publisher = {Springer-Verl.},
reportid = {DKFZ-2018-00550},
pages = {1031 - 1040},
year = {2018},
abstract = {PET using radiolabelled amino acids has become a promising
tool in the diagnostics of gliomas and brain metastasis.
Current research is focused on the evaluation of amide
proton transfer (APT) chemical exchange saturation transfer
(CEST) MR imaging for brain tumour imaging. In this hybrid
MR-PET study, brain tumours were compared using 3D data
derived from APT-CEST MRI and amino acid PET using
O-(2-18F-fluoroethyl)-L-tyrosine (18F-FET).Eight patients
with gliomas were investigated simultaneously with 18F-FET
PET and APT-CEST MRI using a 3-T MR-BrainPET scanner. CEST
imaging was based on a steady-state approach using a B1
average power of 1μT. B0 field inhomogeneities were
corrected a Prametric images of magnetisation transfer ratio
asymmetry (MTRasym) and differences to the extrapolated
semi-solid magnetisation transfer reference method, APT# and
nuclear Overhauser effect (NOE#), were calculated.
Statistical analysis of the tumour-to-brain ratio of the
CEST data was performed against PET data using the
non-parametric Wilcoxon test.A tumour-to-brain ratio derived
from APT# and 18F-FET presented no significant differences,
and no correlation was found between APT# and 18F-FET PET
data. The distance between local hot spot APT# and 18F-FET
were different (average 20 ± 13 mm, range
4-45 mm).For the first time, CEST images were compared with
18F-FET in a simultaneous MR-PET measurement. Imaging
findings derived from18F-FET PET and APT CEST MRI seem to
provide different biological information. The validation
of these imaging findings by histological confirmation is
necessary, ideally using stereotactic biopsy.},
cin = {E020},
ddc = {610},
cid = {I:(DE-He78)E020-20160331},
pnm = {315 - Imaging and radiooncology (POF3-315)},
pid = {G:(DE-HGF)POF3-315},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
pubmed = {pmid:29478081},
doi = {10.1007/s00259-018-3940-4},
url = {https://inrepo02.dkfz.de/record/132908},
}