ECR 2013 – Final Programme - myESR.org

Scientific Sessions10:30–12:00 Room F1Oncologic ImagingSS 916 Whole-body imaging: how to do itModerators: T.F. Hany; Zurich/NL, D.M.J. Lambregts; Maastricht/NL10:30B-0549 Cross over PET/MRI vs PET/CT study in oncologicalpatients: does it change management?J. Al-Kalbani, K. Alnabhani, A. Afaq, R. Syed, C. O‘Meara, A. Barnes, J. Boumanji;London/UK10:39B-0550 Whole body magnetic resonance imaging, includingdiffusion-weighted imaging, for staging malignantlymphoma: comparison to computed tomography in135 patientsT.C. Kwee 1 , M.A. Vermoolen 1 , E.A. Akkerman 2 , M. Kersten 2 , R. Fijnheer 3 ,F.J. Beek 1 , M.S. van Leeuwen 1 , M.B. Bierings 1 , R.A.J. Nievelstein 1 ; 1 Utrecht/NL,2Amsterdam/NL, 3 Amersfoort/NL10:48B-0551 Combination of continuously moving table MRI andPET including image fusion: improved lesion detectionin local and distant recurrence of rectal cancerT. Baumann, A.-O. Schäfer, M. Langer; Freiburg/DE10:57B-0552 Does positron emission tomography data acquisitionimpact simultaneous diffusion-weighted imaging in awhole body PET/MRI system?R.S. Lanzman 1 , C. Buchbender 1 , P. Heusch 1 , V. Hartung-Knemeyer 2 ,T. Lauenstein 2 , M. Forsting 2 , G. Antoch 1 , T. Heusner 1 ; 1 Düsseldorf/DE, 2 Essen/DE11:06B-0553 Standardised uptake values for [18F]-FDG in normalorgan tissues: comparison of whole body PET/CT andPET/MRIC. Buchbender 1 , P. Heusch 1 , V. Hartung-Knemeyer 2 , H. Kühl 2 , T. Lauenstein 2 ,M. Forsting 2 , G. Antoch 1 , T.A. Heusner 1 ; 1 Düsseldorf/DE, 2 Essen/DE11:15B-0554 Impact of FDG PET-CT on patient management andradiotherapy treatment planning in locally advancedcervical carcinomaS. Fleming, R. Cooper, S. Swift, F. Chowdhury, A. Scarsbrook, C. Patel; Leeds/UK11:24B-0555 Is there a role for standard uptake value in theprognostic evaluation of lung nodules?A. Bazzocchi, S. Brocchi, G. Facchini, V. Ambrosini, S. Ascanio, G. Battista,S. Fanti; Bologna/IT11:33B-0556 Detection of underlying malignancy in patients withparaneoplastic neurological syndromes: comparison of18F-FDG-PET/CT and contrast-enhanced CTN. Schramm, A. Rominger, C. Schmidt, C. Schmid-Tannwald, F.G. Meinel,M.F. Reiser, C. Rist; Munich/DE11:42B-0557 FDG-avid duodenal lesions: a retrospective analysis oftheir significance in oncology practiceS. Puri, L. Jones, J. Strang; Rochester, NY/US11:51B-0558 Feasibility and first clinical experiences withsimultaneous PET/MR imaging of cervical cancer:comparison of image quality with MRI and PET/CTP. Brandmaier, S. Purz, M. Reinhardt, M. Gawlitza, H. Barthel, O. Sabri, T. Kahn,R. Kluge, P. Stumpp; Leipzig/DE10:30–12:00 Room F2BreastSS 902Increased risk of breast cancerModerators: L.A. Carbonaro; San Donato Milanese/IT, L. Ollivier; Paris/FR10:30B-0559 Individual radiosensitivity: a key-issue to reconsiderhigh breast cancer risk patient screening modalitiesC. Colin 1 , N. Foray 2 , F. De Vathaire 3 , M. Bourguignon 4 , P.-J. Valette 1 ;1Pierre-Bénite/FR, 2 Lyon/FR, 3 Villejuif/FR, 4 Paris/FR10:39B-0560 Which screenings program should be offered towomen with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations? A simulationof comparative cost-effectivenessG.H. De Bock 1 , K.M. Vermeulen 1 , L. Jansen 1 , J.C. Oosterwijk 1 , S. Siesling 1 ,T. Feenstra 1 , N. Houssami 2 , M.J.W. Greuter 1 ; 1 Groningen/NL, 2 Syndey/AU10:48B-0561 MRI of hereditary breast cancer: can hyper T2 signalintensity be considered as a new semeiotic parameterof higher aggressiveness?G. Trecate, R. Agresti, S. Viganò, L. Suman, D. Vergnaghi, C. Ferranti,M. Marchesini, G. Scaperotta, P. Panizza; Milan/IT10:57B-0562 Fully automated MRI breast density (BD)measurement: comparison to standard mammographicdensity estimationG.J. Wengert, W.-D. Vogl, T.H. Helbich, H. Bickel, W. Bogner, K. Pinker-Domenig;Vienna/AT11:06B-0563 Fully automated quantitative MRI breast density (BD)measurement confirms higher breast density in breastcancer patientsK.J. Pinker-Domenig, G.J. Wengert, H. Bickel, H.F. Magomatschnigg, M. Curda,T.H. Helbich; Vienna/AT11:15B-0564 To excise or not to excise? Management of high-riskbreast lesions in a symptomatic populationJ.D. Cunningham, A. Corr, E. Kelliher, A. O‘Shea, J. Kerr, D. Duke, N. Hambly;Dublin/IE11:24B-0565 The diagnostic value of 3 Tesla breast MRI in thediagnosis of in situ and invasive breast cancerL.G. Merckel 1 , H.M. Verkooijen 1 , N.H.G.M. Peters 1 , R.M. Mann 2 , W.B. Veldhuis 1 ,T. van Dalen 1 , W.P.T.M. Mali 1 , P.H.M. Peeters 1 , M.A.A.J. van den Bosch 1 ;1Utrecht/NL, 2 Nijmegen/NL11:33B-0566 Positive enhancement integral values in diagnosticmagnetic resonance imaging of breast carcinoma:ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) vs invasive ductalcarcinoma (IDC)M.M. Nadrljanski, O.S. Radulovic, Z.C. Milosevic; Belgrade/RS11:42B-0567 DCIS at image-guided needle biopsy: can breast MRIpre-operatory predict invasivity?M. Marcon, V. Bertani, P. Clauser, E. Di Gaetano, V. Londero, A. Linda,R. Girometti, C. Zuiani, M. Bazzocchi; Udine/IT11:51B-0568 Breast dynamic MRI in patient with DCIS percutaneousbiopsy diagnosis: are different grades associated withspecific features?V. Bertani, M. Marcon, P. Clauser, A. Linda, V. Londero, R. Girometti, C. Zuiani,M. Bazzocchi; Udine/ITB-0549 – B-0568Saturday243