December 2017, VOLUME 209
NUMBER 6

Current  |  Available

Recommend & Share

December 2017, Volume 209, Number 6

Special Articles

Review

Whole-Body MRI: Current Applications in Oncology

Mario Morone1, Maria Antonietta Bali2, Nina Tunariu2, Christina Messiou2, Matthew Blackledge3, Luigi Grazioli1 and Dow-Mu Koh2
ShareAudio Available | Share Share
+ Affiliations:
1Prima Radiologia Azienda Socio Sanitaria Territoriale Spedali Civili di Brescia, Piazzale Spedali Civili, 1, Brescia, BS 25123, Italy.

2Radiology Department, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Sutton, UK.

3Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK.

Citation: American Journal of Roentgenology. 2017;209: W336-W349. 10.2214/AJR.17.17984

ABSTRACT :

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this article is to review current image acquisition and interpretation for whole-body MRI, clinical applications, and the emerging roles in oncologic imaging, especially in the assessment of bone marrow diseases.

CONCLUSION. Whole-body MRI is an emerging technique used for early diagnosis, staging, and assessment of therapeutic response in oncology. The improved accessibility and advances in technology, including widely available sequences (Dixon and DWI), have accelerated its deployment and acceptance in clinical practice.

Keywords: diffusion, oncology, whole-body MRI

WEB

This is a web exclusive article.

References
Previous sectionNext section
1. Klenk C, Gawande R, Uslu L, et al. Ionising radiation-free whole-body MRI versus 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose PET/CT scans for children and young adults with cancer: a prospective, non-randomised, single-centre study. Lancet Oncol 2014; 15:275–285 [Google Scholar]
2. Yoshikawa T, Kawamitsu H, Mitchell DG, et al. ADC measurement of abdominal organs and lesions using parallel imaging technique. AJR 2006; 187:1521–1530 [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
3. Takahara T, Kwee TC. Diffusion-weighted whole-body imaging with background body signal suppression (DWIBS). Radiat Med 2004; 22:275–282 [Google Scholar]
4. Koh DM, Collins DJ. Diffusion-weighted MRI in the body: applications and challenges in oncology. AJR 2007; 188:1622–1635 [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
5. Padhani AR, Liu G, Koh DM, et al. Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging as a cancer biomarker: consensus and recommendations. Neoplasia 2009; 11:102–125 [Google Scholar]
6. Takahara T, Kwee T, Kibune S, et al. Whole-body MRI using a sliding table and repositioning surface coil approach. Eur Radiol 2010; 20:1366–1373 [Google Scholar]
7. Dutoit JC, Vanderkerken MA, Verstraete KL. Value of whole body MRI and dynamic contrast enhanced MRI in the diagnosis, follow-up and evaluation of disease activity and extent in multiple myeloma. Eur J Radiol 2013; 82:1444–1452 [Google Scholar]
8. Saya S, Killick E, Thomas S, et al. Baseline results from the UK SIGNIFY study: a whole-body MRI screening study in TP53 mutation carriers and matched controls. Fam Cancer 2017; 16:433–440 [Google Scholar]
9. Costelloe CM, Madewell JE, Kundra V, Harrell RK, Bassett RL, Ma J. Conspicuity of bone metastases on fast Dixon-based multisequence whole-body MRI: clinical utility per sequence. Magn Reson Imaging 2013; 31:669–675 [Google Scholar]
10. Mirowitz SA, Apicella P, Reinus WR, Hammerman AM. MR imaging of bone marrow lesions: relative conspicuousness on T1-weighted, fat-suppressed T2-weighted, and STIR images. AJR 1994; 162:215–221 [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
11. Takahara T, Kwee TC. Low b-value diffusion-weighted imaging: emerging applications in the body. J Magn Reson Imaging 2012; 35:1266–1273 [Google Scholar]
12. Lecouvet FE, Vande Berg BC, Michaux L, et al. Stage III multiple myeloma: clinical and prognostic value of spinal bone marrow MR imaging. Radiology 1998; 209:653–660 [Google Scholar]
13. Kwee TC, Takahara T, Ochiai R, Nievelstein RA, Luijten PR. Diffusion-weighted whole-body imaging with background body signal suppression (DWIBS): features and potential applications in oncology. Eur Radiol 2008; 18:1937–1952 [Google Scholar]
14. Mürtz P, Kaschner M, Träber F, et al. Diffusion-weighted whole-body MRI with background body signal suppression: technical improvements at 3.0 T. J Magn Reson Imaging 2012; 35:456–461 [Google Scholar]
15. Hamstra DA, Rehemtulla A, Ross BD. Diffusion magnetic resonance imaging: a biomarker for treatment response in oncology. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25:4104–4109 [Google Scholar]
16. Tsushima Y, Takano A, Taketomi-Takahashi A, Endo K. Body diffusion-weighted MR imaging using high b-value for malignant tumor screening: usefulness and necessity of referring to T2-weighted images and creating fusion images. Acad Radiol 2007; 14:643–650 [Google Scholar]
17. Blackledge MD, Tunariu N, Orton MR, et al. Inter- and intra-observer repeatability of quantitative whole-body, diffusion-weighted imaging (WBDWI) in metastatic bone disease. PLoS One 2016; 11:e0153840 [Google Scholar]
18. Giles SL, Messiou C, Collins DJ, et al. Whole-body diffusion-weighted MR imaging for assessment of treatment response in myeloma. Radiology 2014; 271:785–794 [Google Scholar]
19. Feuerlein S, Pauls S, Juchems MS, et al. Pitfalls in abdominal diffusion-weighted imaging: how predictive is restricted water diffusion for malignancy. AJR 2009; 193:1070–1076 [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
20. Cieszanowski A, Maj E, Kulisiewicz P, et al. Non-contrast-enhanced whole-body magnetic resonance imaging in the general population: the incidence of abnormal findings in patients 50 years old and younger compared to older subjects. PLoS One 2014; 9:e107840 [Google Scholar]
21. Wale A, Pawlyn C, Kaiser M, Messiou C. Frequency, distribution and clinical management of incidental findings and extramedullary plasmacytomas in whole body diffusion weighted magnetic resonance imaging in patients with multiple myeloma. Haematologica 2016; 101:e142–e144 [Google Scholar]
22. Koh DM, Blackledge M, Padhani AR, et al. Whole-body diffusion-weighted MRI: tips, tricks, and pitfalls. AJR 2012; 199:252–262 [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
23. Padhani AR, Koh D-M, Collins D. Whole-body diffusion-weighted MR imaging in cancer: current status and research directions. Radiology 2011; 261:700–718 [Google Scholar]
24. Lavdas I, Rockall AG, Castelli F, et al. Apparent diffusion coefficient of normal abdominal organs and bone marrow from whole-body DWI at 1.5 T: the effect of sex and age. AJR 2015; 205:242–250 [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
25. Messiou C, Giles S, Collins DJ, et al. Assessing response of myeloma bone disease with diffusion-weighted MRI. Br J Radiol 2012; 85:e1198–e1203 [Google Scholar]
26. Disler DG, McCauley TR, Ratner LM, Kesack CD, Cooper JA. In-phase and out-of-phase MR imaging of bone marrow: prediction of neoplasia based on the detection of coexistent fat and water. AJR 1997; 169:1439–1447 [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
27. Wismer GL, Rosen BR, Buxto R, Stark DD, Brady TJ. Chemical shift imaging of bone marrow: preliminary experience. AJR 1985; 145:1031–1037 [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
28. Fletcher BD, Wall JE, Hanna SL. Effect of hematopoietic growth factors on MR images of bone marrow in children undergoing chemotherapy. Radiology 1993; 189:745–751 [Google Scholar]
29. Dimopoulos MA, Hillengass J, Usmani S, et al. Role of magnetic resonance imaging in the management of patients with multiple myeloma: a consensus statement. J Clin Oncol 2015; 33:657–664 [Google Scholar]
30. Davis JT, Kwatra N, Schooler GR. Pediatric whole-body MRI: a review of current imaging techniques and clinical applications. J Magn Reson Imaging 2016; 44:783–793 [Google Scholar]
31. Padhani AR, Makris A, Gall P, Collins DJ, Tunariu N, De Bono JS. Therapy monitoring of skeletal metastases with whole-body diffusion MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 2014; 39:1049–1078 [Google Scholar]
32. Palumbo A, Anderson K. Multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med 2011; 364:1046–1060 [Google Scholar]
33. Regelink JC, Minnema MC, Terpos E, et al. Comparison of modern and conventional imaging techniques in establishing multiple myeloma-related bone disease: a systematic review. Br J Haematol 2013; 162:50–61 [Google Scholar]
34. Lindsey JD, Becker PS, Conrad EU. Myeloma: diagnosis and management—NICE Guideline NG35. London, UK: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, 2016:410–420 [Google Scholar]
35. Dinter DJ, Neff WK, Klaus J, et al. Comparison of whole-body MR imaging and conventional x-ray examination in patients with multiple myeloma and implications for therapy. Ann Hematol 2009; 88:457–464 [Google Scholar]
36. Baur-Melnyk A, Buhmann S, Becker C, et al. Whole-body MRI versus whole-body MDCT for staging of multiple myeloma. AJR 2008; 190:1097–1104 [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
37. Shortt CP, Gleeson TG, Breen KA, et al. Whole-body MRI versus PET in assessment of multiple myeloma disease activity. AJR 2009; 192:980–986 [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
38. Narquin S, Ingrand P, Azais I, et al. Comparison of whole-body diffusion MRI and conventional radiological assessment in the staging of myeloma. Diagn Interv Imaging 2013; 94:629–636 [Google Scholar]
39. Pawlyn C, Fowkes L, Otero S, et al. Whole-body diffusion-weighted MRI : a new gold standard for assessing disease burden in patients with multiple myeloma? Leukemia 2016; 30:1446–1448 [Google Scholar]
40. Squillaci E, Bolacchi F, Altobelli S, et al. Pre-treatment staging of multiple myeloma patients: comparison of whole-body diffusion weighted imaging with whole-body T1-weighted contrast-enhanced imaging. Acta Radiol 2015; 56:733–738 [Google Scholar]
41. Geith T, Schmidt G, Biffar A, et al. Comparison of qualitative and quantitative evaluation of diffusion-weighted MRI and chemical-shift imaging in the differentiation of benign and malignant vertebral body fractures. AJR 2012; 199:1083–1092 [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
42. Bäuerle T, Hillengass J, Fechtner K, et al. Multiple myeloma and monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance: importance of whole-body versus spinal MR imaging. Radiology 2009; 252:477–485 [Google Scholar]
43. Hillengass J, Fechtner K, Weber MA, et al. Prognostic significance of focal lesions in whole-body magnetic resonance imaging in patients with asymptomatic multiple myeloma. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28:1606–1610 [Google Scholar]
44. Merz M, Hielscher T, Wagner B, et al. Predictive value of longitudinal whole-body magnetic resonance imaging in patients with smoldering multiple myeloma. Leukemia 2014; 28:1902–1908 [Google Scholar]
45. Rajkumar SV, Dimopoulos MA, Palumbo A, et al. International Myeloma Working Group updated criteria for the diagnosis of multiple myeloma. Lancet Oncol 2014; 15:e538–e548 [Google Scholar]
46. Bladé J, Dimopoulos M, Rosiñol L, Rajkumar SV, Kyle RA. Smoldering (asymptomatic) multiple myeloma: current diagnostic criteria, new predictors of outcome, and follow-up recommendations. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28:690–697 [Google Scholar]
47. Walker R, Barlogie B, Haessler J, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging in multiple myeloma: diagnostic and clinical implications. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25:1121–1128 [Google Scholar]
48. Mai EK, Hielscher T, Kloth JK, et al. A magnetic resonance imaging-based prognostic scoring system to predict outcome in transplant-eligible patients with multiple myeloma. Haematologica 2015; 100:818–825 [Google Scholar]
49. Kastritis E, Terpos E, Moulopoulos L, et al. Extensive bone marrow infiltration and abnormal free light chain ratio identifies patients with asymptomatic myeloma at high risk for progression to symptomatic disease. Leukemia 2013; 27:947–953 [Google Scholar]
50. Spinnato P, Bazzocchi A, Brioli A, et al. Contrast enhanced MRI and 18F-FDG PET-CT in the assessment of multiple myeloma: a comparison of results in different phases of the disease. Eur J Radiol 2012; 81:4013–4018 [Google Scholar]
51. Hillengass J, Ayyaz S, Kilk K, et al. Changes in magnetic resonance imaging before and after autologous stem cell transplantation correlate with response and survival in multiple myeloma. Haematologica 2012; 97:1757–1760 [Google Scholar]
52. Bannas P, Hentschel HB, Bley TA, et al. Diagnostic performance of whole-body MRI for the detection of persistent or relapsing disease in multiple myeloma after stem cell transplantation. Eur Radiol 2012; 22:2007–2012 [Google Scholar]
53. Messiou C, Kaiser M. Whole body diffusion weighted MRI: a new view of myeloma. Br J Haematol 2015; 171:29–37 [Google Scholar]
54. Horger M, Weisel K, Horger W, Mroue A, Fenchel M, Lichy M. Whole-body diffusion-weighted MRI with apparent diffusion coefficient mapping for early response monitoring in multiple myeloma: preliminary results. AJR 2011; 196:[web]W790–W795 [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
55. Bonaffini PA, Ippolito D, Casiraghi A, Besostri V, Franzesi CT, Sironi S. Apparent diffusion coefficient maps integrated in whole-body MRI examination for the evaluation of tumor response to chemotherapy in patients with multiple myeloma. Acad Radiol 2015; 22:1163–1171 [Google Scholar]
56. Wu Q, Yang R, Zhou F, Hu Y. Comparison of whole-body MRI and skeletal scintigraphy for detection of bone metastatic tumors: a meta-analysis. Surg Oncol 2013; 22:261–266 [Google Scholar]
57. Takenaka D, Ohno Y, Matsumoto K, et al. Detection of bone metastases in non-small cell lung cancer patients: comparison of whole-body diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), whole-body MR imaging without and with DWI, whole-body FDGPET/CT, and bone scintigraphy. J Magn Reson Imaging 2009; 30:298–308 [Google Scholar]
58. Sohaib SA, Cook G, Allen SD, Hughes M, Eisen T, Gore M. Comparison of whole-body MRI and bone scintigraphy in the detection of bone metastases in renal cancer. Br J Radiol 2009; 82:632–639 [Google Scholar]
59. Balliu E, Boada M, Peláez I, et al. Comparative study of whole-body MRI and bone scintigraphy for the detection of bone metastases. Clin Radiol 2010; 65:989–996 [Google Scholar]
60. Jambor I, Kuisma A, Ramadan S, et al. Prospective evaluation of planar bone scintigraphy, SPECT, SPECT/CT, 18 F-NaF PET/CT and whole body 1.5T MRI, including DWI, for the detection of bone metastases in high risk breast and prostate cancer patients: SKELETA clinical trial. Acta Oncol 2016; 55:59–67 [Google Scholar]
61. Yang HL, Liu T, Wang XM, Xu Y, Deng SM. Diagnosis of bone metastases: a meta-analysis comparing 18FDG PET, CT, MRI and bone scintigraphy. Eur Radiol 2011; 21:2604–2617 [Google Scholar]
62. Heusner T, Golitz P, Hamami M, et al. “One-stop-shop” staging: should we prefer FDG-PET/CT or MRI for the detection of bone metastases? Eur J Radiol 2011; 78:430–435 [Google Scholar]
63. Lecouvet FE, El Mouedden J, Collette L, et al. Can whole-body magnetic resonance imaging with diffusion-weighted imaging replace Tc 99m bone scanning and computed tomography for single-step detection of metastases in patients with high-risk prostate cancer? Eur Urol 2012; 62:68–75 [Google Scholar]
64. Pearce T, Philip S, Brown J, Koh DM, Burn PR. Bone metastases from prostate, breast and multiple myeloma: differences in lesion conspicuity at short-tau inversion recovery and diffusion-weighted MRI. Br J Radiol 2012; 85:1102–1106 [Google Scholar]
65. Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer 2009; 45:228–247 [Google Scholar]
66. Scher HI, Morris MJ, Stadler WM, et al. Trial design and objectives for castration-resistant prostate cancer: updated recommendations from the prostate cancer clinical trials working group 3. J Clin Oncol 2016; 34:1402–1418 [Google Scholar]
67. Blackledge MD, Collins DJ, Tunariu N, et al. Assessment of treatment response by total tumor volume and global apparent diffusion coefficient using diffusion-weighted MRI in patients with metastatic bone disease: a feasibility study. PLoS One 2014; 9:e91770 [Google Scholar]
68. Padhani AR, Lecouvet FE, Tunariu N, et al. Metastasis reporting and data system for prostate cancer: practical guidelines for acquisition, interpretation and reporting of whole-body magnetic resonance imaging-based evaluations of multiorgan involvement in advanced prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2017; 71:81–92 [Google Scholar]
69. Cheson BD, Fisher RI, Barrington SF, et al. Recommendations for initial evaluation, staging, and response assessment of Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma: the Lugano classification. J Clin Oncol 2014; 32:3059–3068 [Google Scholar]
70. Lin C, Luciani A, Itti E, et al. Whole-body diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging with apparent diffusion coefficient mapping for staging patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Eur Radiol 2010; 20:2027–2038 [Google Scholar]
71. Gu J, Chan T, Zhang J, et al. Whole-body diffusion-weighted imaging: the added value to whole-body MRI at initial diagnosis of lymphoma. AJR 2011; 197:[web]W384–W391 [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
72. Stéphane V, Samuel B, Vincent D, et al. Comparison of PET-CT and magnetic resonance diffusion weighted imaging with body suppression (DWIBS) for initial staging of malignant lymphomas. Eur J Radiol 2013; 82:2011–2017 [Google Scholar]
73. Abdulqadhr G, Molin D, Astrom G, et al. Whole-body diffusion-weighted imaging compared with FDG-PET/CT in staging of lymphoma patients. Acta Radiol 2011; 52:173–180 [Google Scholar]
74. van Ufford HM, Kwee TC, Beek FJ, et al. Newly diagnosed lymphoma: initial results with whole-body T1-weighted, STIR, and diffusion-weighted MRI compared with 18F-FDG PET/CT. AJR 2011; 196:662–669 [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
75. Albano D, Patti C, La Grutta L, et al. Comparison between whole-body MRI with diffusion-weighted imaging and PET/CT in staging newly diagnosed FDG-avid lymphomas. Eur J Radiol 2016; 85:313–318 [Google Scholar]
76. Balbo-Mussetto A, Cirillo S, Bruna R, et al. Whole-body MRI with diffusion-weighted imaging: a valuable alternative to contrast-enhanced CT for initial staging of aggressive lymphoma. Clin Radiol 2016; 71:271–279 [Google Scholar]
77. Mayerhoefer ME, Karanikas G, Kletter K, et al. Evaluation of diffusion-weighted MRI for pre-therapeutic assessment and staging of lymphoma: results of a prospective study in 140 patients. Clin Cancer Res 2014; 20:2984–2993 [Google Scholar]
78. Mosavi F, Wassberg C, Selling J, Molin D, Ahlström H. Whole-body diffusion-weighted MRI and 18F-FDG PET/CT can discriminate between different lymphoma subtypes. Clin Radiol 2015; 70:1229–1236 [Google Scholar]
79. Adams HJ, Kwee TC, Vermoolen MA, et al. Whole-body MRI for the detection of bone marrow involvement in lymphoma: prospective study in 116 patients and comparison with FDG-PET. Eur Radiol 2013; 23:2271–2278 [Google Scholar]
80. Albano D, La Grutta L, Grassedonio E, et al. Pitfalls in whole body MRI with diffusion weighted imaging performed on patients with lymphoma: what radiologists should know. Magn Reson Imaging 2016; 34:922–931 [Google Scholar]
81. De Bazelaire C, de Kerviler E. From multislice CT to whole-body biomarker imaging in lymphoma patients. Eur Radiol 2011; 21:555–558 [Google Scholar]
82. Tsuji K, Kishi S, Tsuchida T, et al. Evaluation of staging and early response to chemotherapy with whole-body diffusion-weighted MRI in malignant lymphoma patients: a comparison with FDG-PET/CT. J Magn Reson Imaging 2015; 41:1601–1607 [Google Scholar]
83. Hagtvedt T, Seierstad T, Lund KV, et al. Diffusion-weighted MRI compared to FDG PET/CT for assessment of early treatment response in lymphoma. Acta Radiol 2015; 56:152–158 [Google Scholar]
84. Sun M, Cheng J, Zhang Y, Wang F, Meng Y, Fu X. Application value of diffusion weighted whole body imaging with background body signal suppression in monitoring the response to treatment of bone marrow involvement in lymphoma. J Magn Reson Imaging 2016; 44:1522–1529 [Google Scholar]
85. Littooij AS, Kwee TC, de Keizer B, et al. Whole-body MRI-DWI for assessment of residual disease after completion of therapy in lymphoma: a prospective multicenter study. J Magn Reson Imaging 2015; 42:1646–1655 [Google Scholar]
86. Punwani S, Taylor SA, Bainbridge A, et al. Pediatric and adolescent lymphoma: comparison of whole-body STIR half-Fourier RARE MR imaging with an enhanced PET/CT reference for initial staging. Radiology 2010; 255:182–190 [Google Scholar]
87. Siegel MJ, Acharyya S, Hoffer FA, et al. Whole-body MR imaging for staging of malignant tumors in pediatric patients: results of the American College of Radiology Imaging Network 6660 trial. Radiology 2013; 266:599–609 [Google Scholar]
88. Kwee TC, Vermoolen MA, Akkerman EA, et al. Whole-body MRI, including diffusion-weighted imaging, for staging lymphoma: comparison with CT in a prospective multicenter study. J Magn Reson Imaging 2014; 40:26–36 [Google Scholar]
89. Littooij AS, Kwee TC, Barber I, et al. Whole-body MRI for initial staging of paediatric lymphoma: prospective comparison to an FDG-PET/CT-based reference standard. Eur Radiol 2014; 24:1153–1165 [Google Scholar]
90. Ohno Y, Koyama H, Onishi Y, et al. Non–small cell lung cancer: whole-body MR examination for M-stage assessment—utility for whole-body diffusion-weighted imaging compared with integrated FDG PET/CT. Radiology 2008; 248:643–654 [Google Scholar]
91. Yi CA, Shin KM, Lee KS, et al. Non–small cell lung cancer staging: efficacy comparison of integrated PET/CT versus 3.0-T whole-body MR imaging. Radiology 2008; 248:632–642 [Google Scholar]
92. Sommer G, Wiese M, Winter L, et al. Preoperative staging of non-small-cell lung cancer: comparison of whole-body diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging and 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography/computed tomography. Eur Radiol 2012; 22:2859–2867 [Google Scholar]
93. Ohno Y, Koyama H, Yoshikawa T, et al. Three-way comparison of whole-body MR, coregistered whole-body FDG PET/MR, and integrated whole-body FDG PET/CT imaging: TNM and stage assessment capability for non–small cell lung cancer patients. Radiology 2015; 275:849–861 [Google Scholar]
94. Chen W, Jian W, Li H, et al. Whole-body diffusion-weighted imaging vs. FDG-PET for the detection of non-small-cell lung cancer: how do they measure up? Magn Reson Imaging 2010; 28:613–620 [Google Scholar]
95. Lee MH, Kim SR, Park SY, et al. Application of whole-body MRI to detect the recurrence of lung cancer. Magn Reson Imaging 2012; 30:1439–1445 [Google Scholar]
96. Ohno Y, Nishio M, Koyama H, et al. Comparison of the utility of whole-body MRI with and without contrast-enhanced quick 3D and double RF fat suppression techniques, conventional whole-body MRI, PET/CT and conventional examination for assessment of recurrence in NSCLC patients. Eur J Radiol 2013; 82:2018–2027 [Google Scholar]
97. Michielsen K, Vergote I, Op de Beeck K, et al. Whole-body MRI with diffusion-weighted sequence for staging of patients with suspected ovarian cancer: a clinical feasibility study in comparison to CT and FDG-PET/CT. Eur Radiol 2014; 24:889–901 [Google Scholar]
98. Espada M, Garcia-Flores JR, Jimenez M, et al. Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging evaluation of intra-abdominal sites of implants to predict likelihood of suboptimal cytoreductive surgery in patients with ovarian carcinoma. Eur Radiol 2013; 23:2636–2642 [Google Scholar]
99. Ohno Y, Koyama H, Nogami M, et al. Whole-body MR imaging vs. FDG-PET: comparison of accuracy of M-stage diagnosis for lung cancer patients. J Magn Reson Imaging 2007; 26:498–509 [Google Scholar]
Address correspondence to M. Morone ().

Recommended Articles

Whole-Body MRI: Current Applications in Oncology

No Access
Sudha A. Anupindi, Maria A. Bedoya, Robert B. Lindell, Siri J. Rambhatla, Kristin Zelley, Kim E. Nichols, Nancy A. Chauvin
American Journal of Roentgenology. 2015;205:400-408. 10.2214/AJR.14.13663
Abstract | Full Text | PDF (756 KB) | PDF Plus (820 KB) 
No Access
Christopher J. Hanrahan, Lubdha M. Shah
American Journal of Roentgenology. 2011;197:1309-1321. 10.2214/AJR.11.7420
Abstract | Full Text | PDF (1195 KB) | PDF Plus (1215 KB) 
No Access
Kartik S. Jhaveri, Hooman Hosseini-Nik
American Journal of Roentgenology. 2015;205:W42-W55. 10.2214/AJR.14.14201
Abstract | Full Text | PDF (1213 KB) | PDF Plus (1233 KB) 
No Access
Aoife Kilcoyne, Anuradha S. Shenoy-Bhangle, Drucilla J. Roberts, Rachel Clark Sisodia, Debra A. Gervais, Susanna I. Lee
American Journal of Roentgenology. 2017;208:214-221. 10.2214/AJR.16.16281
Abstract | Full Text | PDF (1138 KB) | PDF Plus (1121 KB) 
No Access
James F. Gruden, Daniel B. Green, Alan C. Legasto, Eric A. Jensen, Prasad M. Panse
American Journal of Roentgenology. 2017;209:1209-1215. 10.2214/AJR.17.18063
Abstract | Full Text | PDF (1078 KB) | PDF Plus (1107 KB) 
No Access
Amir A. Borhani, Amanda Wiant, Matthew T. Heller
American Journal of Roentgenology. 2014;203:1192-1204. 10.2214/AJR.13.12386
Abstract | Full Text | PDF (1122 KB) | PDF Plus (1179 KB) | Erratum