Huadong Miao1, Hiroshi Fukatsu, Takeo Ishigaki. 1. Department of Radiology, Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine, 65 Tsurumai, Nagoya 4668550, Japan. hdmiao60@hotmail.com
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical value of diffusion-weighted (DW) and T2-weighted (T2W) imaging in detecting prostate cancer using a 3-Tesla (3T) magnetic resonance (MR) system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-seven patients with suspected prostate cancer underwent T2W and DW imaging at 3T using an 8-channel phased-array coil. These images and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) maps were read retrospectively and blindly. The results were compared with histopathologic findings, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was used to compare the cancer detection performance of T2W and DW imaging. RESULTS: The areas under the ROC curves for DW imaging and T2W imaging were 0.89 and 0.82, respectively. The performance of DW imaging in prostate cancer detection was significantly better than that of T2W imaging (P=0.0371). CONCLUSION: With a 3T MR system, the performance of DW imaging in detecting prostate cancer was better than that of T2W imaging. DW imaging appears to be a robust and reliable method to examine the whole prostate within an acceptable scan time in clinical settings.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical value of diffusion-weighted (DW) and T2-weighted (T2W) imaging in detecting prostate cancer using a 3-Tesla (3T) magnetic resonance (MR) system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-seven patients with suspected prostate cancer underwent T2W and DW imaging at 3T using an 8-channel phased-array coil. These images and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) maps were read retrospectively and blindly. The results were compared with histopathologic findings, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was used to compare the cancer detection performance of T2W and DW imaging. RESULTS: The areas under the ROC curves for DW imaging and T2W imaging were 0.89 and 0.82, respectively. The performance of DW imaging in prostate cancer detection was significantly better than that of T2W imaging (P=0.0371). CONCLUSION: With a 3T MR system, the performance of DW imaging in detecting prostate cancer was better than that of T2W imaging. DW imaging appears to be a robust and reliable method to examine the whole prostate within an acceptable scan time in clinical settings.
Authors: B Nicolas Bloch; Elizabeth M Genega; Daniel N Costa; Ivan Pedrosa; Martin P Smith; Herbert Y Kressel; Long Ngo; Martin G Sanda; William C Dewolf; Neil M Rofsky Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2012-06-03 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Carlos F Uribe; Edward C Jones; Silvia D Chang; S Larry Goldenberg; Stefan A Reinsberg; Piotr Kozlowski Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2015-02-24 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: Berrend G Muller; Jurgen J Fütterer; Rajan T Gupta; Aaron Katz; Alexander Kirkham; John Kurhanewicz; Judd W Moul; Peter A Pinto; Ardeshir R Rastinehad; Cary Robertson; Jean de la Rosette; Rafael Sanchez-Salas; J Stephen Jones; Osamu Ukimura; Sadhna Verma; Hessel Wijkstra; Michael Marberger Journal: BJU Int Date: 2013-11-13 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Ryan L Brunsing; Natalie M Schenker-Ahmed; Nathan S White; J Kellogg Parsons; Christopher Kane; Joshua Kuperman; Hauke Bartsch; Andrew Karim Kader; Rebecca Rakow-Penner; Tyler M Seibert; Daniel Margolis; Steven S Raman; Carrie R McDonald; Nikdokht Farid; Santosh Kesari; Donna Hansel; Ahmed Shabaik; Anders M Dale; David S Karow Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2016-08-16 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Baris Turkbey; Haresh Mani; Omer Aras; Ardeshir R Rastinehad; Vijay Shah; Marcelino Bernardo; Thomas Pohida; Dagane Daar; Compton Benjamin; Yolanda L McKinney; W Marston Linehan; Bradford J Wood; Maria J Merino; Peter L Choyke; Peter A Pinto Journal: J Urol Date: 2012-08-15 Impact factor: 7.450