% 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:844225,
author = {da Silva, N. A. and Lohmann, P. and Fairney, J. and Magill,
A. W. and Oros Peusquens, A.-M. and Choi, C.-H. and
Stirnberg, R. and Stoffels, G. and Galldiks, N. and Golay,
X. and Langen, K.-J. and Shah, N. J.},
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 = {FZJ-2018-01666},
pages = {1031–1040},
year = {2018},
abstract = {PurposePET 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).MethodsEight
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.ResultsA 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).ConclusionFor 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 = {INM-3 / INM-4},
ddc = {610},
cid = {I:(DE-Juel1)INM-3-20090406 / I:(DE-Juel1)INM-4-20090406},
pnm = {572 - (Dys-)function and Plasticity (POF3-572)},
pid = {G:(DE-HGF)POF3-572},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
pubmed = {pmid:29478081},
UT = {WOS:000430832400016},
doi = {10.1007/s00259-018-3940-4},
url = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/844225},
}