OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to compare T2-weighted MRI alone and T2 combined with diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) for the localization of prostate cancer. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: T2-weighted imaging and DWI (b value = 600 s/mm2) were performed in 49 patients before radical prostatectomy using an endorectal coil at 1.5 T in this prospective trial. The peripheral zone of the prostate was divided into sextants and the transition zone into left and right halves. T2 images alone and then T2 images combined with apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) maps (T2 + DWI) were scored for the likelihood of tumor and were compared with whole-mount histology results. Fixed window and level settings were used to display the ADC maps. Only tumors with an area of more than 0.13 cm2 (> 4 mm diameter) and a Gleason score of > or = 6 were considered significant. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (A(z)) was used to assess accuracy. RESULTS: In the peripheral zone, the A(z) value was significantly higher (p = 0.004) for T2 plus DWI (A(z) = 0.89) than for T2 imaging alone (A(z) = 0.81). Performance was poorer in the transition zone for both T2 plus DWI (A(z) = 0.78) and T2 (A(z) = 0.79). For the whole prostate, sensitivity was significantly higher (p < 0.001) with T2 plus DWI (81% [120/149]) than with T2 imaging alone (54% [81/149]), with T2 plus DWI showing only a slight loss in specificity compared with T2 imaging alone (84% [204/243] vs 91% [222/243], respectively). CONCLUSION: Combined T2 and DWI MRI is better than T2 imaging alone in the detection of significant cancer (Gleason score > or = 6 and diameter > 4 mm) within the peripheral zone of the prostate.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to compare T2-weighted MRI alone and T2 combined with diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) for the localization of prostate cancer. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: T2-weighted imaging and DWI (b value = 600 s/mm2) were performed in 49 patients before radical prostatectomy using an endorectal coil at 1.5 T in this prospective trial. The peripheral zone of the prostate was divided into sextants and the transition zone into left and right halves. T2 images alone and then T2 images combined with apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) maps (T2 + DWI) were scored for the likelihood of tumor and were compared with whole-mount histology results. Fixed window and level settings were used to display the ADC maps. Only tumors with an area of more than 0.13 cm2 (> 4 mm diameter) and a Gleason score of > or = 6 were considered significant. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (A(z)) was used to assess accuracy. RESULTS: In the peripheral zone, the A(z) value was significantly higher (p = 0.004) for T2 plus DWI (A(z) = 0.89) than for T2 imaging alone (A(z) = 0.81). Performance was poorer in the transition zone for both T2 plus DWI (A(z) = 0.78) and T2 (A(z) = 0.79). For the whole prostate, sensitivity was significantly higher (p < 0.001) with T2 plus DWI (81% [120/149]) than with T2 imaging alone (54% [81/149]), with T2 plus DWI showing only a slight loss in specificity compared with T2 imaging alone (84% [204/243] vs 91% [222/243], respectively). CONCLUSION: Combined T2 and DWI MRI is better than T2 imaging alone in the detection of significant cancer (Gleason score > or = 6 and diameter > 4 mm) within the peripheral zone of the prostate.
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: Piotr Kozlowski; Silvia D Chang; Ran Meng; Burkhard Mädler; Robert Bell; Edward C Jones; S Larry Goldenberg Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2010-04-13 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: Kolja M Thierfelder; Michael K Scherr; Mike Notohamiprodjo; Jakob Weiß; Olaf Dietrich; Ullrich G Mueller-Lisse; Josef Pfeuffer; Konstantin Nikolaou; Daniel Theisen Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2014-08-27 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Nazanin Hajarol Asvadi; Sohrab Afshari Mirak; Amirhossein Mohammadian Bajgiran; Pooria Khoshnoodi; Pornphan Wibulpolprasert; Daniel Margolis; Anthony Sisk; Robert E Reiter; Steven S Raman Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2018-11
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: Benjamin Ades-Aron; Jelle Veraart; Peter Kochunov; Stephen McGuire; Paul Sherman; Elias Kellner; Dmitry S Novikov; Els Fieremans Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2018-08-02 Impact factor: 6.556
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