PMCCPMCCPMCC

Search tips
Search criteria 

Advanced

 
Logo of nihpaAbout Author manuscriptsSubmit a manuscriptHHS Public Access; Author Manuscript; Accepted for publication in peer reviewed journal;
 
Semin Roentgenol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2010 October 15.
Published in final edited form as:
PMCID: PMC2955431
NIHMSID: NIHMS101617

Whole-body Diffusion Weighted and Proton Imaging: A review of this emerging technology for monitoring metastatic cancer

Introduction

Cancer is a potentially curable disease and the combined effects of early detection and adjuvant systemic therapy are likey the key elements that explain the observed reduction in cancer mortality over the last 20 years (1). Although our current paradigms and treatments for cancer have resulted in substantial progress, the disease frequently evades long term control and cure. It is imperative that we continue to search for new possibilities in detection, assessment of progression and monitoring of treatment of cancer. Thus, early detection and diagnosis before metastasis is critical (1, 2). The development of skeletal or organ metastasis is often difficult to detect and usually not found until clinical symptoms present or is discovered during tumor staging with radiological imaging. In general, metastatic lesions usually present with clinical symptoms of pain and or abnormal serum results, such as, elevations of carcinoembryonic antigen(CEA-a protein that is typically increased with breast tumors or colon tumors), cancer antigen 15-3 (CA-15) or prostate specific antigen(PSA). If metastatic disease is present, the usual sites are in bones, liver, brain, and lung. For example, metastatic breast and prostate cancer usually prefers the axial skeleton(~90%), e.g., vertebrae, pelvis, ribs, femur, and skull, whereas, colon cancer prefers viscera, e.g, liver(3-5). The types of metastatic lesions that can arise within the bony structures are osteolytic (~75%;bone reabsorption-usually in the marrow), osteoblastic (~15%;bone formation-usually in the cortical or trabecular structure), or mixed (10%)(5, 6).

Determination of metastatic disease is accomplished using radiological imaging, such as plain film X-ray, Tc99m bone scintigraphy, computed tomography(CT), positron emission tomography (PET), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and the radiological characteristics of bony metastatic disease are detailed in Figure 1. Indeed, these radiological procedures are the cornerstone for the detection and staging of metastatic lesions, and, if possible, classifying the type of lesion as well as the extent and localization of metastatic sites (5). However, until recently, most sensitive radiological procedures were limited to only “regional” or “local” coverage and could not interrogate the full body. Tc99m bone scintigraphy is a true whole-body method, but usually exhibits lower specificity due an increased false-positive rate related to different disease processes, such as, trauma, degenerative changes, inflammation, or benign disease (4,5,7,8). In some cases, there is a need for additional radiological imaging for clarification of the findings (9). False negatives can occur when osteolytic lesions grow rapidly or have slow bone regeneration (4,5,10). In addition, for monitoring therapeutic response, Tc99m bone scans can be unreliable (6,11). To augment Tc99m bone scans, CT scans are used for metastatic screening(12). Computed tomography has a high sensitivity (~72-90%) for detecting metastatic lesions in the cortex of the bone and is sensitive to bone marrow changes from metastases that result from bone destruction which causes increased attenuation(13). However, CT does not give any “functional” information about the status of cells and movement of water within the tissue and is less sensitive in the early development phases of metastatic disease in bone marrow or in soft tissue other than the lung. CT can show some changes in the bony structure, but repeated CT scans, at the intervals needed to gauge early response to treatment, are associated with increased levels of radiation (approximately 15msv per scan) (14-17). Positron emission tomography imaging is now clinical standard for staging and/or detecting metastasis with near whole body coverage and has moderate to high sensitivity and moderate specificity in tumors(18-21). When PET is combined with CT (PET/CT), the lower spatial resolution PET image is fused onto a CT image for anatomical localization. Moreover, a quantitative measure of glycolic activity in tumors can be obtained using a metric called Standardized Uptake Value (SUV) from PET data. SUV is defined as

SUV=Activity(μCi/g)[injected dose(μCi/g)/weight(kg)]
(1)

where activity (the tissue activity obtained from the PET images), the injected dose (μCi / g) of 18FDG, and weight of the patient are considered. In general, a normal SUV is low (~1) and any change above 2.5 is considered suspicious and requires correlation with clinical and other radiological findings (22). However, there are some practical limitations to PET/CT imaging; for example, repeat scans required to gauge treatment response can be logistically difficult and there is a substantial increase in radiation dose of approximately 22mSv. Finally, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a very sensitive method for the localized detection of metastatic lesions in viscera and bone, using either T2- or T1-weighted images with fat-suppression and Short tau inversion recovery (STIR) methods (23-28). However, although sensitive, T1 and T2–weighted images do not provide “functional” information on the status of the lesion and until recently have been limited to localized regions of interest and it not clear if they can be used to monitor treatment response.

New paradigms for whole-body imaging using magnetic resonance imaging

As discussed above, prior radiological studies of metastatic lesions have been performed in using combinations of modalities such as, Tc99m bone scans, CT, PET/CT, and T1- STIR and T2-weighted MR examinations in locoregional areas or near whole-body imaging. In addition, if the threshold of uptake is not sufficient within the region of interest some bony metastatic lesions may go undetected on either bone scan or CT or if the scan is aimed at specific regions of the body, it may miss an area of interest(29-32) Some potential limitations of these radiological procedures include incomplete interrogation of the whole body and a lack of functional or metabolic information (3-5, 33-35).

Some of these limitations may be overcome with recent developments in the field of MR technology, including gradient systems, RF coils, and “rolling bed” methods which allow whole-body coverage using anatomical T1-STIR or T2-weighted imaging(see Figure 2). These improvements have been demonstrated during the last few years with encouraging results that demonstrate both oncological and non-oncological indications compared to more conventional imaging methods (17, 28-32, 36-44). Indeed, regions of metastatic lesions detected by STIR T1 or T2 are very sensitive; but they exhibit little functional or metabolic information. However, one could use diffusion weighted imaging (DWI), which provides physiological information that would complement routine T1- and T2-weighted imaging.

Diffusion weighted Imaging

Diffusion-weighted imaging provides important information about the movement and functional status of the microenvironment of water in tissue. Changes in diffusion of water within pathological tissue may occur before they are seen on standard MR imaging(45-49). In addition, these changes between normal and pathological tissue results in differences (increases or decreases) in the signal intensity of DWI. The reason for these signal intensity changes on DWI are not exactly known; however; there is evidence that these changes may be attributable to many factors, such as shifts of water from the extracellular space to the intracellular space, increased tortuosity of the diffusion pathways, restriction of the cellular membrane permeability, cellular density, and disruption of cellular membrane depolarization (50-54). Moreover, DWI also provides an important quantitative biophysical parameter, called the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) of water. The ADC is an indicator of the movement of water within the tissue. It gives an average value of the flow and the distance a water molecule has moved. A “decreased” ADC is interpreted as “reduced” (restricted) flow of water, whereas an “increased” ADC indicates no restricted water flow within the tissue. The ADC map will reflect these changes and potentially serve as a radiological biomarker of tissue response. These changes on the DWI are seen before they are seen on a T1 or T2-weighted image(46-49). In general, water movement can be restricted by compacted or proliferating cells. ADC is a marker of tumor density or cellularity, such that, a highly dense region will have low ADC and an area with low density will exhibit a high ADC It has been demonstrated that there are differences in the ADC value between benign and malignant lesions (35, 55-63) and vertebral metastatic lesions (64-68); or ischemic events (e.g., stroke) (45-48). These applications of DWI/ADC mapping have been primarily used for localized imaging of specific organs. In this paper, however, we will detail the novel application of using whole body DWI (WB-DWI) with ADC mapping for the detection of malignant lesions. To date, there are a few reports in the literature about using WB-DWI for the detection of metastatic lesions (42,67,69-75) and a paucity of systematic studies (74).

Whole-body Diffusion Weighted Imaging

As noted above, DWI provides a radiological biomarker for monitoring disease states via the ADC map. In general, ADC is a marker of tumor density or cellularity, such that a highly dense region will have a low ADC and an area with low density will exhibit a high ADC. However, it has been demonstrated that there are changes in the ADC parameters for different tissues, particularly in benign and malignant lesions. Moreover, suspicious areas detected by T1 or T2 have no functional or metabolic information (e.g., DWI/ADC). There are a few reports in the literature about the feasibility of using WB-DWI in different cancers (42,67,69-74). It is clear that by combining T1- and T2-weighted imaging with WB-DWI, early changes within the tumor and metastatic sites can be visualized and can provide important information about treatment response, which would enable individualized treatment regimens. Therefore, using these methods for the detection, classification, and monitoring of treatment are clearly attainable goals in the near future. Figure 3 demonstrates the use of axial WB-DWI/ADC mapping at 1.5T on a 64 y/o patient with known prostate cancer. The Tc99m bone scan demonstrates multiple areas of increased uptake in the calvarium, sternum, ribs, vertebra, pelvis, and femur suggestive of metastatic sites. However, there are some false-positives (degenerative and inflammatory changes) noted in the left knee and left ankle (post fracture due to fall—dotted arrow). Whole-body DWI (b=0, 600 s/mm2) demonstrated multiple metastatic sites and the corresponding ADC map values obtained from both normal tissue and suspected metastatic sites were consistent with altered pathological states. In addition, Figure 4 demonstrates WB-DWI at 3T on a normal female 35 y/o volunteer. We constructed full coronal T2WI and ADC maps for visualization of the soft tissue and bones. These examples demonstrate the potential of WB-DWI.

Technical Issues for whole-body imaging

Gradients and radio frequency coils

In order to be able to realize whole-body MR examination which is required to cover a large examination volume, special demands for the gradient systems and RF coils are required. A fast gradient slew rate as well as a high gradient amplitude are prerequisites for achieving short repetition and echo times (TR and TE), in order to allow fast imaging and shortest possible scan time(76). A typical high-performance gradient system is as follows; maximum gradient amplitudes in all spatial directions are around 40 mT/m with minimum rise times of 5.9 μs/(mT/m) and maximum slew rate of 170 T/m/s. For RF systems, the RF coils are required to excite a large examination volume as homogeneously as possible. In terms of signal reception, the built-in body coil of the scanner with a signal reception over large examination regions can be used. However, this necessitates a high demand for the homogeneity of the signal reception and has limited attainable SNR. Alternatively, a series of dedicated RF surface coils, adapted to the respective examination region, can be placed over each body region to achieve complete head-to-coverage, as shown in Figure 5. With this setup, no time-consuming patient repositioning is needed and which significantly shortens the total examination time with increased SNR. Surface coils are further combined as phased-array coils to facilitate parallel imaging and achieve high spatial resolution. A typical state-of-the-art RF receiver system offers the connection of up to 76 array elements from multiple phased-array surface coils and simultaneous signal reception from up to 32 independent receiver channels(76).

Whole-body coverage typically requires scanning a number of (four to nine) regions of the body in multiple steps with so called multistation techniques to achieve an extended longitudinal FOV. The MR system automatically moves the patient table with the patient to discrete stations and images are acquired as soon as the table is stopped (77). To cover each station, either the body coil or dedicated surface coils for each body region are used for signal reception. Further, the images acquired from all stations are merged, either composed or reformatted, to generate composite whole-body images from head to toe. With the typical high-performance gradients and RF coil system as indicated above, a total scan range of approximately 205cm with head-to-toe coverage and large field-of-views (400-500 mm) can be achieved with parallel imaging sequences while maintaining high spatial resolution and a reasonable examination time.

Whole body coverage via built-in body coil or whole body surface coil design

As discussed above, to achieve whole-body coverage, the scan must be performed at multiple stations to achieve extensive longitudinal FOV coverage. Conventionally, when surface coils are used, the patient must be repositioned and the surface coils reconfigured at each station, all of which is significantly time consuming. Therefore, instead of using surface coils, several vendors, including Philips and General Electric, utilize the built-in body coil as both the excitation and receiver coil, with an automatic moving tabletop (later with an tabletop extension), to achieve whole-body coverage (30, 73). However, this demands high homogeneity of the signal reception of the body coil over a large examination volume, and the SNR and CNR are inferior to surface coils. Later, a rolling table platform mounted on the top of the original patient table, with an integrated phased-array surface coil, was introduced (AngioSURF and BodySURF, MR-Innovation, Essen, Germany) (78). The “patient holder” glides in between a “coil sandwich” comprised of the spine coil integrated into the patient table and the phased-array surface coil attached to the patient table in the bore. The use of the surface coil permits a higher spatial resolution while maintaining a sufficient SNR. Recently, Siemens introduced a whole-body surface coil design technology, the so-called TIM (Total Imaging Matrix). The TIM technology combines a seamlessly integrated coil element with independent RF channels that can be freely and flexibly combined to cover the whole body from head to toe like a matrix. Up to 76 coil elements from multiple phased-array surface coils can be connected to the scanner with simultaneous signal reception from up to 32 independent receiver channels, which allow large anatomical coverage (up to 205cm) and image acquisition, with no time lost due to patient repositioning and coil reconfiguration(79). As indicated, all major MR vendors recognize the clinical need, as well as the future potential of WB-MRI, and both hardware and software are being actively developed to further push the limit of this emerging technology.

Pulse sequences

The choice of which MR pulse sequence to use depends on the desired application and type of cancer. The choice of which MR pulse sequence to use depends on the desired application and type of cancer. Most WB-MR studies have been performed using fat suppressed (FS), T1- and T2-weighted sequences (T1WI and T2WI), with newer studies using WB-DWI. In addition, most T1WI, T2WI, and DWI sequences utilize parallel imaging sequences for reduced scanning time and reduction of artifacts (80, 81). For example, typical T2WI parameters are repetition time/echo time (TR/TE)=6640/84ms, NEX=1, field of view (FOV)=40×40cm2, imaging matrix=256×256, slice thickness(ST)=4mm, bandwidth (BW)=250Hz and T1WI are TR/TE=259/13ms, flip angle 180, NEX=4, FOV=40×40cm2, imaging matrix=256×256, ST=4mm, BW=110Hz. The WB-DWI (spin echo, echo planar imaging (EPI)) sequences should have a least two different b values and a minimum TR (81, 82). Typical WB-DWI parameters are TR/TE=3900/78, NEX=3, ST=4mm, 2mm gap, imaging matrix=128×128, BW=min of 1700 Hz and b = 0 -1000 s/mm2. These parameters can be modified according to the organ of interest (42). The acquisition of different b-values allows for the creation of trace apparent ADC maps on a pixel-by-pixel basis for quantitative analysis according to the equation.

ADC=i=1nln(Si/So)bi
(1)

where bi = the diffusion gradient values; (b=γ2G2δ2 (Δ-δ/3), γ= gyromagnetic ratio, G=gradient strength, δ=diffusion gradient duration, Δ= time between diffusion gradient pulses, S0 = 1st image (b=0), and Si = ith image.

Diffusion weighted imaging with background body signal suppression (DWIBS)

A unique concept of whole-body DWI, called “diffusion-weighted whole-body imaging with background body signal suppression” (DWIBS) was first described by Takahara et al. (67) at 1.5T. DWIBS uses a free breathing approach during scanning with multiple thin axial slices and large signal averages (NEX). In addition, fat suppression is applied by either STIR or other robust methods. In essence, DWIBS exploits both intravoxel incoherent motion (IVDM) and intravoxel coherent motion which uses free breathing during scanning to visualize the organ of interest(45,70,75,83). Notably, for accurate background suppression, both large b values (>500) and NEX, thus longer acquisition times are needed (67,69,70,73,75). Figure 6 shows some typical results from various WB-DWIBS reports.

Field Strength

The magnetic field strength most widely used in WB-MR and WB-DWI is 1.5 Telsa. Research studies using 3T WB-MRI have been reported from others(69) and by our group (84). However, there are some advantages and challenges when moving pulse sequences to higher magnetic field strengths. The advantages include increased signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and spatial resolution, but the disadvantages include the following: (1) susceptibility artifacts (variation of local magnetic field at the boundaries between different types of tissues); (2) B1 inhomogeneities due to increased wavelengths and variations; (3) nonuniform fat suppression for large fields of view; (4) increased eddy currents; and (5) large chemical shift artifacts. As expected, Murtz, et al. reported increased SNR and CNR at 3T versus 1.5T and increased motion artifacts due to increased scan times(69). They reported longer imaging times than those at 1.5T presumably due to increased specific absorption rate (SAR) and increased TR(69).

Summary and Protocols

Although the techniques for WB-MR/DWI are not standardized and still investigational, several principles from the above discussion may be applied to the development of a clinical WB-MR/DWI protocol. In general, all WB protocols will need to acquire images from the head to the mid-femur, covering approximately 200cm with a large FOV (400-500 mm), and using either T1WI and T2WI for anatomical morphology. Diffusion-weighted sequences should have at least two different b-values for creation of ADC maps, as discussed above. In addition, other MR sequences, such as dynamitic contrast imaging (DCE) or magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS), can be incorporated in the WB-MR scan and is an area of active research.

Current Clinical Indications for Whole-body Imaging

The indications for WB-MR/DWI are listed in Table 1 and discussed below.

Table 1
Indications for whole-body MR and diffusion weighted imaging

Detection of metastatic disease

Treatment planning for patients depends on staging of the primary tumor. Thus, the search of metastatic disease in patients is important for long-term prognosis. The power of WB-MR for the detection of metastasis has been demonstrated in a handful of recent reports using T1-STIR or T2-weighted imaging sequences(17,28-32,37,40,85). For example, Lauenstein et al. (78) investigated the use of whole-body imaging using various T1 and T2 sequences compared to bone scans. These investigators found a sensitivity of 88% and a specificity of 88%. Similar results were found by Antoch et al., (86), where the authors reported a diagnostic accuracy of 93% for whole-body MRI, compared to a diagnostic accuracy of 94% for PET-CT for assessment of the M stage in the Tumor Nodal Metastasis (TNM) staging criteria (41). Moreover, others have reported high sensitivities using WB-MR, ranging from 71%-95%(17,28,29,31,32,36,39-44,85,87,88). The ability to obtain high spatial resolution and “functional” images of the whole body for assessment of pathological disorders is of major importance to the oncologist, radiologist, and more importantly, the patient. In a recent editorial in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), Blomqvist and Torkzad (16) eloquently stated, “the planning treatment for metastatic patients relies heavily on imaging information to establish tumor stage at presentation and to assess tumor response to treatment. … Because different imaging modalities have different inherent soft tissue contrast properties, use of several imaging modalities in a stepwise approach is common.” The authors further elaborated that “…one of the most important, if not the only, indication for whole-body imaging is the search for metastases. Somewhat surprisingly, results of whole body MRI reported by Antoch et al. (86) were comparable with PET/CT.” Moreover, the use of WB-MRI represents a future setting where the patient will be imaged using a single modality and, within minutes to hours, a complete diagnosis and treatment plan could be available(16). Therefore, this “future setting” is becoming a reality; few radiological procedures can achieve either partial or whole-body imaging in one setting. For example, radiological procedures that can obtain full or partial whole-body coverage are bone scintigraphy, PET/CT, and CT alone, and, more recently, WB-MRI. The introduction of whole-body MRI allows for rapid imaging of the whole body with high spatial resolution and has the potential to evaluate skeletal and visceral metastatic regions throughout the body.

Tumor staging and screening of high risk patients (T3 or greater)

Tumor staging and screening is very important in determining the type of therapeutic options that are available for a patient. These treatment options range from neoadjuvant, surgical, adjunctive, and/or palliative; therefore, methods that can define and guide these decisions are crucial. Tumor staging is defined by size and nodal involvement, and metastasis, if present, and is recorded on the TNM scale. The T (size) and N (nodal) stage is defined by palpation, histology, or through radiological imaging. Lymph nodes have characteristic appearances on T1WI and T2WI MR Images, and metastatic lymph nodes usually present with a low ADC map value. Finally, the M stage is determined using radiological imaging, as described above (e.g., bone scintigraphy, PET/CT) and this is the stage at which the use of WB-MR/DWI will be most advantageous, and can be extended to investigate high-risk patients for additional cancers or other diseases. This is possible due to the increased soft tissue resolution and distinct radiological biomarkers (ADC mapping) compared to other imaging modalities with near whole-body coverage. Indeed, a recent study demonstrated the ability of WB-DWI to accurately classify lesions according to the TMN staging system. Ohno, et al. in a prospective study of non small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients (n=203), compared WB-MR with and without WB-DWI to PET/CT in determining the M stage of the tumor (74). They reported that WB-DWI compared favorably with PET/CT. WB-DWI alone had a sensitivity/specificity of 0.57 and 0.79, and 0.70/0.87 when combined with WB-MR, whereas, PET/CT demonstrated a sensitivity/specificity of 0.62/0.94. Indeed, in another small study of 29 patients (solid and liquid tumors), similar results were noted, and these results are shown in Figure 7 (73). In addition, Komori et al. reported that 25/27(92.6%) of the malignant lesions were detected visually with WB-DWIBS imaging, whereas, 22/27 malignant tumors (81.5%) were seen with PET/CT imaging(70). However, surprisingly, they found no difference between benign and malignant lesion ADC values, contrary to several other reports (56, 58, 59, 72, 89-91). This difference between benign and malignant lesion ADC values may be related to the difference in DWI sequences, sample sizes, and other technical factors. Nonetheless, the combination of WB-DWI/ADC mapping and PET/CT radiological parameters will be very useful for screening of cancer patients. Indeed, a review of the literature demonstrates better sensitivity and specificity for WB-MR and WB-DWI compared to bone scintigraphy and equal sensitivity and specificity for PET/CT imaging of tumors which is summarized in Table 2.

Table 2
Review of whole-body MR and DWI literature

Monitoring treatment response

The advantage of monitoring treatment response is a critical need. Our limited ability to predict early on which patients will benefit from therapy (overall or individual regimens) makes it difficult to select the treatment most likely to help, while minimizing exposure to potentially ineffective and toxic regimens. The proposed WB-MR/DWI technology will advance clinical radiological diagnostic tools for the detection and classification of treatment response, as well as distant metastasis, with high specificity and sensitivity. Currently, there is a lack of standardization of functional MRI parameters to monitor treatment. However, through the use of WB-DWI, we believe that radiological biomarkers can be developed for monitoring metastatic disease. The concept of a WB-MR/DWI imaging modality for accurate detection and monitoring of treatment is needed, ensuring that accurate treatment planning can be defined.

Pediatric Whole-body imaging

One area of real advancement for WB-MRI will be in imaging children. Current whole-body methods are x-ray, bone scans, CT, and PET. These methods all involve ionizing radiation, which may be detrimental to children. However, WB-MRI (T1 OR T2WI) or WB-DWI could be utilized to minimize radiation dose and increase soft tissue delineation. Recent reports have shown the potential of WB-MRI in children (92). For example, Daldrup-Link et al compared WB-MRI to standard radiological imaging methods (e,g, PET and bone scintigraphy) for the evaluation of potential metastatic disease in children and reported comparable sensitivities between PET and WB-MRI (90% vs 82%) which were higher than bone scans (71%) (39). Other groups have shown similar results using WB-MRI (93-95). The use of WB-DWI in children has not been explored and is actively being pursued. However, there are some limitations in the use of WB-MR in children, such as sedation and normal bone and marrow changes that could mimic disease. But, in the future, the potential of WB-MRI and WB-DWI to become excellent screening tools in children is high.

Conclusion

The ability to use WB-MR and WB-DWI/ADC mapping at both 1.5T and 3T holds great promise, and has shown utility in the identification and, potentially, the characterization (WB-DWI/ADC) of both bony and visceral metastasis. However, more optimization is required for WB-DWI to become a routine screening tool, and large-scale studies are needed to fully gauge its impact in oncology. However, WB-MRI and WB-DWI will be increasing used in pediatric applications and other systemic disorders as a non-invasive method to detect and monitor patients. The utility of this new imaging method is just now being realized and will increase in the near future.

Acknowledgments

We thank Dr. David Bluemke and Dr. Christine Lorenz for their support. We are grateful for the help of Mary McAllister, MS. In addition, Lucie Bower, Dr Donald Peck, and Dr. Hamid Soltanian-Zadeh, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, MI for the Eigentool image analysis software used for image processing. This work was supported in part by R01CA100184, P50CA103175, 5P30CA006973, and Siemens Medical Grant # JHU-2006-MR-37-01

Footnotes

Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

References

1. Jemal A, Thun MJ, Ries LA, et al. Annual Report to the Nation on the Status of Cancer, 1975-2005, Featuring Trends in Lung Cancer, Tobacco Use, and Tobacco Control. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008 Nov 25; [PMC free article] [PubMed]
2. Smith RA, Cokkinides V, Eyre HJ. American Cancer Society Guidelines for the Early Detection of Cancer, 2005. CA Cancer J Clin. 2005;55(1):31–44. quiz 55-36. [PubMed]
3. Galasko CS. Skeletal metastases and mammary cancer. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 1972 Jan;50(1):3–28. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
4. Hortobagyi GN. Bone metastases in breast cancer patients. Semin Oncol. 1991 Aug;18(4 Suppl 5):11–15. [PubMed]
5. Hamaoka T, Madewell JE, Podoloff DA, Hortobagyi GN, Ueno NT. Bone imaging in metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2004 Jul 15;22(14):2942–2953. [PubMed]
6. Vinholes J, Coleman R, Eastell R. Effects of bone metastases on bone metabolism: implications for diagnosis, imaging and assessment of response to cancer treatment. Cancer Treat Rev. 1996 Jul;22(4):289–331. [PubMed]
7. Wickerham L, Fisher B, Cronin W. The efficacy of bone scanning in the follow-up of patients with operable breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 1984;4(4):303–307. [PubMed]
8. Coleman RE. Monitoring of bone metastases. Eur J Cancer. 1998 Feb;34(2):252–259. [PubMed]
9. Gosfield E, 3rd, Alavi A, Kneeland B. Comparison of radionuclide bone scans and magnetic resonance imaging in detecting spinal metastases. J Nucl Med. 1993 Dec;34(12):2191–2198. [PubMed]
10. Galasko CS, Doyle FH. The detection of skeletal metastases from mammary cancer. A regional comparison between radiology and scintigraphy. Clin Radiol. 1972 Jul;23(3):295–297. [PubMed]
11. Hayward JL, Carbone PP, Heuson JC, Kumaoka S, Segaloff A, Rubens RD. Assessment of response to therapy in advanced breast cancer: a project of the Programme on Clinical Oncology of the International Union Against Cancer, Geneva, Switzerland. Cancer. 1977 Mar;39(3):1289–1294. [PubMed]
12. Stacy GS, Mahal RS, Peabody TD. Staging of Bone Tumors: A Review with Illustrative Examples. Am J Roentgenol. 2006 April 1;186(4):967–976. doi: 10.2214/AJR.05.0654. %R. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
13. Rybak LD, Rosenthal DI. Radiological imaging for the diagnosis of bone metastases. Q J Nucl Med. 2001 Mar;45(1):53–64. [PubMed]
14. Gold RI, Seeger LL, Bassett LW, Steckel RJ. An integrated approach to the evaluation of metastatic bone disease. Radiol Clin North Am. 1990 Mar;28(2):471–483. [PubMed]
15. Low RN. Magnetic resonance imaging of the abdomen: applications in the oncology patient. Oncology (Williston Park) 2000 Jun;14(6 Suppl 3):5–14. [PubMed]
16. Blomqvist L, Torkzad MR. Whole-Body Imaging With MRI or PET/CT: The Future for Single-Modality Imaging in Oncology? JAMA. 2003 December 24;290(24):3248–3249. [PubMed]
17. Schmidt GP, Haug AR, Schoenberg SO, Reiser MF. Whole-body MRI and PET-CT in the management of cancer patients. Eur Radiol. 2006 Mar 15; [PubMed]
18. Phelps ME. Inaugural article: positron emission tomography provides molecular imaging of biological processes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2000 Aug 1;97(16):9226–9233. [PubMed]
19. Phelps ME. PET: the merging of biology and imaging into molecular imaging. J Nucl Med. 2000 Apr;41(4):661–681. [PubMed]
20. Beyer T, Townsend DW, Brun T, et al. A combined PET/CT scanner for clinical oncology. J Nucl Med. 2000 Aug;41(8):1369–1379. [PubMed]
21. Gambhir SS, Czernin J, Schwimmer J, Silverman DHS, Coleman RE, Phelps ME. A Tabulated Summary of the FDG PET Literature. J Nucl Med. 2001 May 1;42(90050):1S–93. [PubMed]
22. Thie JA. Understanding the Standardized Uptake Value, Its Methods, and Implications for Usage. J Nucl Med. 2004 September 1;45(9):1431–1434. [PubMed]
23. Bydder GM, Young IR. Clinical use of the partial saturation and saturation recovery sequences in MR imaging. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1985 Nov-Dec;9(6):1020–1032. [PubMed]
24. Daffner RH, Lupetin AR, Dash N, Deeb ZL, Sefczek RJ, Schapiro RL. MRI in the detection of malignant infiltration of bone marrow. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1986 Feb;146(2):353–358. [PubMed]
25. Frank JA, Ling A, Patronas NJ, et al. Detection of malignant bone tumors: MR imaging vs scintigraphy. Am J Roentgenol. 1990 November 1;155(5):1043–1048. [PubMed]
26. Fleckenstein JL, Archer BT, Barker BA, Vaughan JT, Parkey RW, Peshock RM. Fast short-tau inversion-recovery MR imaging. Radiology. 1991 May;179(2):499–504. [PubMed]
27. Bydder GM, Hajnal JV, Young IR. MRI: use of the inversion recovery pulse sequence. Clin Radiol. 1998 Mar;53(3):159–176. [PubMed]
28. Schmidt GP, Schoenberg SO, Reiser MF, Baur-Melnyk A. Whole-body MR imaging of bone marrow. Eur J Radiol. 2005 Jul;55(1):33–40. [PubMed]
29. Eustace S, Tello R, DeCarvalho V, et al. A comparison of whole-body turboSTIR MR imaging and planar 99mTc- methylene diphosphonate scintigraphy in the examination of patients with suspected skeletal metastases. Am J Roentgenol. 1997 December 1;169(6):1655–1661. [PubMed]
30. O'Connell MJ, Hargaden G, Powell T, Eustace SJ. Whole-Body Turbo Short Tau Inversion Recovery MR Imaging Using a Moving Tabletop. Am J Roentgenol. 2002 October 1;179(4):866–868. [PubMed]
31. Hargaden G, O'Connell M, Kavanagh E, Powell T, Ward R, Eustace S. Current Concepts in Whole-Body Imaging Using Turbo Short Tau Inversion Recovery MR Imaging. Am J Roentgenol. 2003 January 1;180(1):247–252. [PubMed]
32. Engelhard K, Hollenbach HP, Wohlfart K, von Imhoff E, Fellner FA. Comparison of whole-body MRI with automatic moving table technique and bone scintigraphy for screening for bone metastases in patients with breast cancer. European Radiology. 2004;14(1):99–105. [PubMed]
33. Goris ML, Bretille J. Skeletal scintigraphy for the diagnosis of malignant metastatic disease to the bones. Radiother Oncol. 1985 Jun;3(4):319–329. [PubMed]
34. Flickinger FW, Sanal SM. Bone marrow MRI: techniques and accuracy for detecting breast cancer metastases. Magn Reson Imaging. 1994;12(6):829–835. [PubMed]
35. Englander SA, Ulug AM, Brem R, Glickson JD, van Zijl PC. Diffusion imaging of human breast. NMR Biomed. 1997;10(7):348–352. [PubMed]
36. Johnson KM, Leavitt GD, Kayser HW. Total-body MR imaging in as little as 18 seconds. Radiology. 1997 January 1;202(1):262–267. [PubMed]
37. Steinborn MM, Heuck AF, Tiling R, Bruegel M, Gauger L, Reiser MF. Whole-body bone marrow MRI in patients with metastatic disease to the skeletal system. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1999 Jan-Feb;23(1):123–129. [PubMed]
38. Barkhausen J, Quick HH, Lauenstein T, et al. Whole-body MR imaging in 30 seconds with real-time true FISP and a continuously rolling table platform: Feasibility study. Radiology. 2001 Jul;220(1):252–256. [PubMed]
39. Daldrup-Link HE, Franzius C, Link TM, et al. Whole-Body MR Imaging for Detection of Bone Metastases in Children and Young Adults: Comparison with Skeletal Scintigraphy and FDG PET. Am J Roentgenol. 2001 July 1;177(1):229–236. [PubMed]
40. Frat A, Agildere M, Gencoglu A, et al. Value of whole-body turbo short tau inversion recovery magnetic resonance imaging with panoramic table for detecting bone metastases: comparison with 99MTc-methylene diphosphonate scintigraphy. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2006 Jan-Feb;30(1):151–156. [PubMed]
41. Johnston C, Brennan S, Ford S, Eustace S. Whole body MR imaging: applications in oncology. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2006 Apr;32(3):239–246. [PubMed]
42. Li S, Sun F, Jin ZY, Xue HD, Li ML. Whole-body diffusion-weighted imaging: technical improvement and preliminary results. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2007 Oct;26(4):1139–1144. [PubMed]
43. Stecco A, Romano G, Negru M, et al. Whole-body diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in the staging of oncological patients: comparison with positron emission tomography computed tomography (PET-CT) in a pilot study. Radiol Med. 2008 Dec 11; [PubMed]
44. Brauck K, Zenge MO, Vogt FM, et al. Feasibility of whole-body MR with T2- and T1-weighted real-time steady-state free precession sequences during continuous table movement to depict metastases. Radiology. 2008 Mar;246(3):910–916. [PubMed]
45. Le Bihan D, Breton E, Lallemand D, Grenier P, Cabanis E, Laval Jeantet M. MR imaging of intravoxel incoherent motions: application to diffusion and perfusion in neurologic disorders. Radiology. 1986;161:401–407. [PubMed]
46. Moseley ME, Kucharczyk J, Mintorovitch J, et al. Diffusion-weighted MR imaging of acute stroke: correlation withT2-weighted and magnetic susceptibility-enhanced MR imaging in cats. American Journal of Neuroradiology. 1990;11(3):423–429. [PubMed]
47. Warach S, Chien D, Li W, Ronthal M, Edelman R. Fast magnetic resonance diffusion-weighted imaging of acute human stroke. Neurology. 1992;42:1717–1723. [PubMed]
48. Welch K, Windham J, Knight RA, et al. A model to predict the histopathology of human stroke using diffusion and T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging. Stroke. 1995;26(11):1983–1989. [PubMed]
49. Theilmann RJ, Borders R, Trouard TP, et al. Changes in water mobility measured by diffusion MRI predict response of metastatic breast cancer to chemotherapy. Neoplasia. 2004;6(6):831–837. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
50. Mintorovitch J, Moseley M, Chileuitt L, Shimizu H, Cohen Y, Weinstein P. Comparison of diffusion and T2 weighted MRI for the early detection of cerebral ischemia and reperfusion in rats. Magn Reson Med. 1991;18(1):39–50. [PubMed]
51. Knight RA, Ordidge R, Helpern J, Chopp M, Rodolosi L, Peck D. Temporal evolution of ischemic damage in rat brain measured by proton nuclear magnetic resonance imaging. Stroke. 1991;22(6):802–808. [PubMed]
52. Minematsu K, Li L, Sotak C, Davis M, Fisher M. Reversible focal ischemic injury demonstrated by diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in rat brain. Stroke. 1992;23:1304–1311. [PubMed]
53. Szafer A, Zhong J, Gore JC. Theoretical model for water diffusion in tissues. Magn Reson Med. 1995 May;33(5):697–712. [PubMed]
54. Le Bihan DJ. Differentiation of benign versus pathologic compression fractures with diffusion-weighted MR imaging: a closer step toward the “holy grail” of tissue characterization? Radiology. 1998 May;207(2):305–307. [PubMed]
55. Cheng KH, Hernandez M. Magnetic resonance diffusion imaging detects structural damage in biological tissues upon hyperthermia. Cancer Res. 1992;52(21):6066–6073. [PubMed]
56. Chenevert TL, Stegman LD, Taylor JM, et al. Diffusion magnetic resonance imaging: an early surrogate marker of therapeutic efficacy in brain tumors. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000 Dec 20;92(24):2029–2036. [PubMed]
57. Guo Y, Cai YQ, Cai ZL, et al. Differentiation of clinically benign and malignant breast lesions using diffusion-weighted imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2002;16(2):172–178. [PubMed]
58. Hosseinzadeh K, Schwarz SD. Endorectal diffusion-weighted imaging in prostate cancer to differentiate malignant and benign peripheral zone tissue. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2004 Oct;20(4):654–661. [PubMed]
59. Woodhams R, Matsunaga K, Iwabuchi K, et al. Diffusion-weighted imaging of malignant breast tumors: the usefulness of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) value and ADC map for the detection of malignant breast tumors and evaluation of cancer extension. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2005 Sep-Oct;29(5):644–649. [PubMed]
60. Jacobs MA, Herskovits EH, Kim HS. Uterine fibroids: diffusion-weighted MR imaging for monitoring therapy with focused ultrasound surgery--preliminary study. Radiology. 2005 Jul;236(1):196–203. [PubMed]
61. Kamel IR, Bluemke DA, Eng J, et al. The role of functional MR imaging in the assessment of tumor response after chemoembolization in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2006 Mar;17(3):505–512. [PubMed]
62. Manton DJ, Chaturvedi A, Hubbard A, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer: early response prediction with quantitative MR imaging and spectroscopy. Br J Cancer. 2006;94(3):427–435. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
63. Sinha S, Sinha U. Recent advances in breast MRI and MRS. NMR Biomed. 2008 Jul 23;
64. Baur A, Stabler A, Bruning R, et al. Diffusion-weighted MR imaging of bone marrow: differentiation of benign versus pathologic compression fractures. Radiology. 1998 May 1;207(2):349–356. [PubMed]
65. Castillo M, Arbelaez A, Smith JK, Fisher LL. Diffusion-weighted MR imaging offers no advantage over routine noncontrast MR imaging in the detection of vertebral metastases. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2000 May;21(5):948–953. [PubMed]
66. Herneth AM, Philipp MO, Naude J, et al. Vertebral Metastases: Assessment with Apparent Diffusion Coefficient. Radiology. 2002 December 1;225(3):889–894. [PubMed]
67. Takahara T, Imai Y, Yamashita T, Yasuda S, Nasu S, Van Cauteren M. Diffusion weighted whole body imaging with background body signal suppression (DWIBS): technical improvement using free breathing, STIR and high resolution 3D display. Radiat Med. 2004 Jul-Aug;22(4):275–282. [PubMed]
68. Herneth AM, Friedrich K, Weidekamm C, et al. Diffusion weighted imaging of bone marrow pathologies. Eur J Radiol. 2005 Jul;55(1):74–83. [PubMed]
69. Murtz P, Krautmacher C, Traber F, Gieseke J, Schild HH, Willinek WA. Diffusion-weighted whole-body MR imaging with background body signal suppression: a feasibility study at 3.0 Tesla. Eur Radiol. 2007 Dec;17(12):3031–3037. [PubMed]
70. Komori T, Narabayashi I, Matsumura K, et al. 2-[Fluorine-18]-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography versus whole-body diffusion-weighted MRI for detection of malignant lesions: initial experience. Ann Nucl Med. 2007 Jun;21(4):209–215. [PubMed]
71. Koh DM, Takahara T, Imai Y, Collins DJ. Practical aspects of assessing tumors using clinical diffusion-weighted imaging in the body. Magn Reson Med Sci. 2007;6(4):211–224. [PubMed]
72. Jacobs MA, Pan L, Macura K, et al. Whole Body Diffusion Weighted Imaging and ADC Mapping for Detecting Metastatic Cancer. Proc Intl Soc Mag Reson Med. 2007;15
73. Vilanova JC, Barcelo J. Diffusion-weighted whole-body MR screening. Eur J Radiol. 2008 Sep;67(3):440–447. [PubMed]
74. 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 Aug;248(2):643–654. [PubMed]
75. Kwee TC, Takahara T, Ochiai R, Nievelstein RAJ, Luijten PR. Diffusion-weighted whole-body imaging with background body signal suppression (DWIBS): features and potential applications in oncology. European Radiology. 2008 Sep;18(9):1937–1952. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
76. Quick H, Ladd M. Technical requirements for whole-body MRI, in Real Whole Body Imaging. 1st. New York: McGraw Hill; 2008.
77. Bornert P, Aldefeld B. Principles of whole-body continuously-moving-table MRI. Journal Of Magnetic Resonance Imaging. 2008 Jul;28(1):1–12. [PubMed]
78. Lauenstein TC, Freudenberg LS, Goehde SC, et al. Whole-body MRI using a rolling table platform for the detection of bone metastases. Eur Radiol. 2002 Aug;12(8):2091–2099. [PubMed]
79. Goyen M. Real Whole Body Imaging. 1st. New York: McGraw Hill; 2008.
80. Winkelmann R, Bornert P, Dossel O. Ghost artifact removal using a parallel imaging approach. Magnetic Resonance In Medicine. 2005 Oct;54(4):1002–1009. [PubMed]
81. Fautz HP, Honal M, Saueressig U, Schafer O, Kannengiesser SAR. Artifact reduction in moving-table acquisitions using parallel imaging and multiple averages. Magnetic Resonance In Medicine. 2007 Jan;57(1):226–232. [PubMed]
82. Chou MC, Wang CY, Liu HS, Chung HW, Chen CY. Pseudolesions arising from unfolding artifacts in diffusion imaging with use of parallel acquisition: Origin and remedies. American Journal Of Neuroradiology. 2007 Jun-Jul;28(6):1099–1101. [PubMed]
83. Bammer R. Basic principles of diffusion-weighted imaging. Eur J Radiol. 2003 Mar;45(3):169–184. [PubMed]
84. Jacobs MA. Whole Body Diffusion Weighted Imaging Screening. MR of Cancer Workshop; Intl Soc Mag Reson Med. 2008;15
85. Lauenstein TC, Goehde SC, Herborn CU, et al. Whole-body MR imaging: evaluation of patients for metastases. Radiology. 2004 Oct;233(1):139–148. [PubMed]
86. Antoch G, Vogt FM, Freudenberg LS, et al. Whole-Body Dual-Modality PET/CT and Whole-Body MRI for Tumor Staging in Oncology. JAMA. 2003 December 24;290(24):3199–3206. doi: 10.1001/jama.290.24.3199. %R. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
87. Horvath LJ, Burtness BA, McCarthy S, Johnson KM. Total-Body Echo-planar MR Imaging in the Staging of Breast Cancer: Comparison with Conventional Methods—Early Experience. Radiology. 1999 April 1;211(1):119–128. [PubMed]
88. Walker R, Kessar P, Blanchard R, et al. Turbo STIR magnetic resonance imaging as a whole-body screening tool for metastases in patients with breast carcinoma: Preliminary clinical experience. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging. 2000;11(4):343–350. [PubMed]
89. El Khouli RH, Jacobs MA, Bluemke DA. Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast. Semin Roentgenol. 2008 Oct;43(4):265–281. [PubMed]
90. Sharma U, Danishad KK, Seenu V, Jagannathan NR. Longitudinal study of the assessment by MRI and diffusion-weighted imaging of tumor response in patients with locally advanced breast cancer undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy. NMR Biomed. 2008 Apr 3; [PubMed]
91. Hamstra DA, Chenevert TL, Moffat BA, et al. Evaluation of the functional diffusion map as an early biomarker of time-to-progression and overall survival in high-grade glioma. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005 Nov 15;102(46):16759–16764. [PubMed]
92. Darge K, Jaramillo D, Siegel MJ. Whole-body MRI in children: current status and future applications. Eur J Radiol. 2008 Nov;68(2):289–298. [PubMed]
93. Kellenberger CJ, Miller SF, Khan M, Gilday DL, Weitzman S, Babyn PS. Initial experience with FSE STIR whole-body MR imaging for staging lymphoma in children. European Radiology. 2004 Oct;14(10):1829–1841. [PubMed]
94. Goo HW, Choi SH, Ghim T, Moon HN, Seo JJ. Whole-body MRI of paediatric malignant tumours: comparison with conventional oncological imaging methods. Pediatr Radiol. 2005 Aug;35(8):766–773. [PubMed]
95. Kumar J, Seith A, Kumar A, et al. Whole-body MR imaging with the use of parallel imaging for detection of skeletal metastases in pediatric patients with small-cell neoplasms: comparison with skeletal scintigraphy and FDG PET/CT. Pediatric Radiology. 2008 Sep;38(9):953–962. [PubMed]
96. Barcelo J, Vilanova JC, Riera E, et al. Diffusion-weighted whole-body MRI (virtual PET) in screening for osseous metastases; in spanish. Radiologia. 2007 Nov-Dec;49(6):407–415. [PubMed]
97. Schlemmer HP, Schafer J, Pfannenberg C, et al. Fast whole-body assessment of metastatic disease using a novel magnetic resonance imaging system: initial experiences. Invest Radiol. 2005 Feb;40(2):64–71. [PubMed]