Back to Authors

Cha, Soonmee

0000-0002-5924-5876

A5081059312 | I180670191

Mayo Clinic

University of California, San Francisco

Citations 4

Reply to “Dynamic Susceptibility Contrast MRI for Evaluation of Patients With High-Grade Glioma: Need for Multicenter Clinical Trial Validation”

American Journal of Roentgenology | May 28, 2025 | Volume: 226 | Issue: 1 | Pages: No page available

10.2214/ajr.25.33122 | PMID 40434165

Advanced Imaging in the Diagnosis and Response Assessment of High-Grade Glioma: AJR Expert Panel Narrative Review

American Journal of Roentgenology | March 13, 2024 | Volume: 224 | Issue: 1 | Pages: No page available

10.2214/ajr.23.30612 | PMID 38477525

PET/MRI: Where might it replace PET/CT?

Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging | October 13, 2017 | Volume: 46 | Issue: 5 | Pages: No page available

10.1002/jmri.25872

PET/MRI: Where might it replace PET/CT?

Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging | March 31, 2017 | Volume: 46 | Issue: 5 | Pages: 1247-1262

10.1002/jmri.25711 | PMID 28370695

Simultaneous positron emission tomography and MRI (PET/MRI) is a technology that combines the anatomic and quantitative strengths of MR imaging with physiologic information obtained from PET. PET and computed tomography (PET/CT) performed in a single scanning session is an established technology already in widespread and accepted use worldwide. Given the higher cost and complexity of operating and interpreting the studies obtained on a PET/MRI system, there has been question as to which patients would benefit most from imaging with PET/MRI versus PET/CT. In this article, we compare PET/MRI with PET/CT, detail the applications for which PET/MRI has shown promise and discuss impediments to future adoption. It is our hope that future work will prove the benefit of PET/MRI to specific groups of patients, initially those in which PET/CT and MRI are already performed, leveraging simultaneity and allowing for greater degrees of multiparametric evaluation.Level of Evidence: 5Technical Efficacy: Stage 5J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2017;46:1247–1262.