Osman Ratib, MD, PhD, FAHA, professor and chief of nuclear medicine in the Department of Radiology at the University Hospital of Geneva, discusses the advantages and future of the hybrid PET/MR modality.
[[{"type":"media","view_mode":"media_crop","fid":"8165","attributes":{"alt":"","class":"media-image media-image-left","id":"media_crop_9348676445430","media_crop_h":"0","media_crop_image_style":"-1","media_crop_instance":"213","media_crop_rotate":"0","media_crop_scale_h":"0","media_crop_scale_w":"0","media_crop_w":"0","media_crop_x":"0","media_crop_y":"0","style":"margin: 5px; float: left;","title":" ","typeof":"foaf:Image"}}]] Bridging the two complementary modalities of PET and MR has advantages over PET/CT, as a lower dose and more differentiating modality. That's according to Osman Ratib, MD, PhD, FAHA, professor and chief of nuclear medicine in the Department of Radiology and chairman of the Department of Imaging and Medical Informatics at the University Hospital of Geneva. His orgnanization was an early adopter of PET/MR with Philips’ Ingenuity TF, which received FDA clearance in November 2011.
The system includes two devices separated by about 10 feet with a rotating table so the patient can be scanned in the same position in each machine. Data are merged via software. In this podcast, Ratib discusses the advantages of this hybrid modality, what the transition was like for hospital staff, and the future of PET/MR.
[[{"type":"media","view_mode":"media_crop","fid":"11969","attributes":{"alt":"","class":"media-image","id":"media_crop_8968679564714","media_crop_h":"0","media_crop_image_style":"-1","media_crop_instance":"214","media_crop_rotate":"0","media_crop_scale_h":"0","media_crop_scale_w":"0","media_crop_w":"0","media_crop_x":"0","media_crop_y":"0","title":" ","typeof":"foaf:Image"}}]]
Can MRI-Based AI Enhance Pre-Op Prediction of Tumor Deposits in Patients with Rectal Cancer?
October 31st 2024For patients with rectal cancer, an emerging nomogram that combines deep learning and clinical factors had greater than 16 percent and 23 percent increases in accuracy and specificity, respectively, for pre-op prediction of tumor deposits in comparison to clinical factors alone.