Author + information
- Received February 11, 2015
- Revision received April 7, 2015
- Accepted April 9, 2015
- Published online January 1, 2016.
- Kavitha Yaddanapudi, MD∗∗ (, )
- Richard Brunken, MD†,
- Carmela D. Tan, MD‡,
- E. Rene Rodriguez, MD‡ and
- Michael A. Bolen, MD∗
- ∗Imaging Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio
- †Department of Nuclear Medicine, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio
- ‡Department of Pathology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio
- ↵∗Reprint requests and correspondence:
Dr. Kavitha Yaddanapudi, Department of Radiology, HSC tower, Level 4, Room 120, Stony Brook, New York 11794-8460.
Cardiac tumors are infrequent, and management strategy depends on whether the tumor is benign or malignant, as well as its location within the heart. Imaging characteristics aid in prognostication and direct management. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a useful tool providing multiplanar imaging, wide field of view, and inherent tissue characterization; however, MRI alone often cannot predict whether a tumor is benign or malignant. 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (PET) imaging may help identify malignant lesions, as hypermetabolism is a marker for malignant potential. A combined approach that uses the relative strengths of both MRI and PET imaging could potentially yield extensive anatomic and metabolic information about cardiac masses.
We present 6 cases (Figures 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6) that demonstrate the potential utility of fused MRI and PET imaging in the assessment of suspected cardiac masses, with corresponding histopathology. We utilized basic fusion and co-registration software to create the fused PET–MRI image from separately acquired MRI and PET images.
Fused PET–MRI may provide increased confidence in decision making in diagnosis of cardiac masses, as well as a means of re-evaluation. Images may be acquired concurrently or fused after separate acquisitions, as in this series. This approach requires investigation in larger cohorts to further delineate its clinical role.
The authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose.
- Received February 11, 2015.
- Revision received April 7, 2015.
- Accepted April 9, 2015.
- American College of Cardiology Foundation