% 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{Reinert:276774,
      author       = {C. P. Reinert and C. Liang and M. Weissinger and J. Vogel
                      and A. Forschner and K. Nikolaou$^*$ and C. la Fougère$^*$
                      and F. Seith},
      title        = {{W}hole-{B}ody {M}agnetic {R}esonance {I}maging ({MRI}) for
                      {S}taging {M}elanoma {P}atients in {D}irect {C}omparison to
                      {C}omputed {T}omography ({CT}): {R}esults from a
                      {P}rospective {P}ositron {E}mission {T}omography
                      ({PET})/{CT} and {PET}/{MRI} {S}tudy.},
      journal      = {Diagnostics},
      volume       = {13},
      number       = {11},
      issn         = {2075-4418},
      address      = {Basel},
      publisher    = {MDPI},
      reportid     = {DKFZ-2023-01155},
      pages        = {1963},
      year         = {2023},
      abstract     = {The consideration of radiation exposure is becoming more
                      important in metastatic melanoma due to improved prognoses.
                      The aim of this prospective study was to investigate the
                      diagnostic performance of whole-body (WB) magnetic resonance
                      imaging (MRI) in comparison to computed tomography (CT) with
                      18F-FDG positron emission tomography (PET)/CT and
                      18F-PET/MRI together with a follow-up as the reference
                      standard.Between April 2014 and April 2018, a total of 57
                      patients (25 females, mean age of 64 ± 12 years) underwent
                      WB-PET/CT and WB-PET/MRI on the same day. The CT and MRI
                      scans were independently evaluated by two radiologists who
                      were blinded to the patients' information. The reference
                      standard was evaluated by two nuclear medicine specialists.
                      The findings were categorized into different regions: lymph
                      nodes/soft tissue (I), lungs (II), abdomen/pelvis (III), and
                      bone (IV). A comparative analysis was conducted for all the
                      documented findings. Inter-reader reliability was assessed
                      using Bland-Altman procedures, and McNemar's test was
                      utilized to determine the differences between the readers
                      and the methods.Out of the 57 patients, 50 were diagnosed
                      with metastases in two or more regions, with the majority
                      being found in region I. The accuracies of CT and MRI did
                      not show significant differences, except in region II where
                      CT detected more metastases compared to MRI (0.90 vs. 0.68,
                      p = 0.008). On the other hand, MRI had a higher detection
                      rate in region IV compared to CT (0.89 vs. 0.61, p > 0.05).
                      The level of agreement between the readers varied depending
                      on the number of metastases and the specific region, with
                      the highest agreement observed in region III and the lowest
                      observed in region I.In patients with advanced melanoma,
                      WB-MRI has the potential to serve as an alternative to CT
                      with comparable diagnostic accuracy and confidence across
                      most regions. The observed limited sensitivity for the
                      detection of pulmonary lesions might be improved through
                      dedicated lung imaging sequences.},
      keywords     = {computed tomography (Other) / magnetic resonance imaging
                      (Other) / melanoma (Other) / positron emission tomography
                      (Other) / staging (Other)},
      cin          = {TU01},
      ddc          = {610},
      cid          = {I:(DE-He78)TU01-20160331},
      pnm          = {899 - ohne Topic (POF4-899)},
      pid          = {G:(DE-HGF)POF4-899},
      typ          = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
      pubmed       = {pmid:37296815},
      pmc          = {pmc:PMC10253107},
      doi          = {10.3390/diagnostics13111963},
      url          = {https://inrepo02.dkfz.de/record/276774},
}