PURPOSE: To evaluate the principal methodological aspects of whole-body magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) including diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) with background suppression using a time-optimized protocol for restaging of prostate cancer patients in a technical feasibility study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventeen patients underwent MRI at 1.5T from the base of the skull to the proximal thigh using axial T1-weighted (T1w), T2w short-tau inversion recovery (STIR), and DWI (b-values: 50 and 500 s/mm(2)) and sagittal T1w and T2w STIR of the spine. Apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values of liver, spleen, kidney, muscle, and bone were measured. Image quality in DWI was assessed by using a scale from 0-9. Contrast-to-noise ratios (CNRs) of lymph node and bone metastases were determined in T1w, T2w STIR, and DWI. Bone metastases were further subclassified according to their Hounsfield units (HU) in computed tomography (CT). RESULTS: Mean acquisition and mean room times were 66:20 and 75:21 minutes, respectively. ADC values of normal organs showed good concordance with reported data. Good to excellent image quality was observed for DWI (mean scores 7.41-8.00) with the exception of the neck (mean score 4.76). CNR of DWI (b-value 50 s/mm(2) ) for lymph node metastases was clearly superior compared to all other sequences. For bone metastases T1w performed significantly better for sclerotic lesions (HU > 600), DWI (b-value 50 s/mm(2) ) for nonsclerotic lesion (HU < 300). CONCLUSION: In patients with recurrent prostate cancer a whole-body MR protocol including DWI is technically robust. Due to the high CNR of DWI compared to T1w and T2w STIR, detection of malignant lesions should be facilitated by DWI, except for sclerotic bone metastases.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the principal methodological aspects of whole-body magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) including diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) with background suppression using a time-optimized protocol for restaging of prostate cancerpatients in a technical feasibility study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventeen patients underwent MRI at 1.5T from the base of the skull to the proximal thigh using axial T1-weighted (T1w), T2w short-tau inversion recovery (STIR), and DWI (b-values: 50 and 500 s/mm(2)) and sagittal T1w and T2w STIR of the spine. Apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values of liver, spleen, kidney, muscle, and bone were measured. Image quality in DWI was assessed by using a scale from 0-9. Contrast-to-noise ratios (CNRs) of lymph node and bone metastases were determined in T1w, T2w STIR, and DWI. Bone metastases were further subclassified according to their Hounsfield units (HU) in computed tomography (CT). RESULTS: Mean acquisition and mean room times were 66:20 and 75:21 minutes, respectively. ADC values of normal organs showed good concordance with reported data. Good to excellent image quality was observed for DWI (mean scores 7.41-8.00) with the exception of the neck (mean score 4.76). CNR of DWI (b-value 50 s/mm(2) ) for lymph node metastases was clearly superior compared to all other sequences. For bone metastases T1w performed significantly better for sclerotic lesions (HU > 600), DWI (b-value 50 s/mm(2) ) for nonsclerotic lesion (HU < 300). CONCLUSION: In patients with recurrent prostate cancer a whole-body MR protocol including DWI is technically robust. Due to the high CNR of DWI compared to T1w and T2w STIR, detection of malignant lesions should be facilitated by DWI, except for sclerotic bone metastases.
Authors: Ida Sonni; Ryogo Minamimoto; Lucia Baratto; Sanjiv S Gambhir; Andreas M Loening; Shreyas S Vasanawala; Andrei Iagaru Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2020-04 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Michael A Jacobs; Katarzyna J Macura; Atif Zaheer; Emmanuel S Antonarakis; Vered Stearns; Antonio C Wolff; Thorsten Feiweier; Ihab R Kamel; Richard L Wahl; Li Pan Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2018-04-04 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Nicola L Robertson; Evis Sala; Matthias Benz; Jonathan Landa; Peter Scardino; Howard I Scher; Hedvig Hricak; Hebert A Vargas Journal: J Urol Date: 2017-02-16 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Riccardo Del Vescovo; Giulia Frauenfelder; Francesco Giurazza; Claudia Lucia Piccolo; Roberto Luigi Cazzato; Rosario Francesco Grasso; Emiliano Schena; Bruno Beomonte Zobel Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2014-03-18 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Ananth J Madhuranthakam; Karen S Lee; Aya Yassin; Jean H Brittain; Ivan Pedrosa; Neil M Rofsky; David C Alsop Journal: MAGMA Date: 2013-09-20 Impact factor: 2.310
Authors: A J Conde-Moreno; G Herrando-Parreño; R Muelas-Soria; J Ferrer-Rebolleda; R Broseta-Torres; M P Cozar-Santiago; F García-Piñón; C Ferrer-Albiach Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2016-10-31 Impact factor: 3.405
Authors: Mahmud Mossa-Basha; Peter C Gerszten; Sten Myrehaug; Nina A Mayr; William Tc Yuh; Pejman Jabehdar Maralani; Arjun Sahgal; Simon S Lo Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2019-07-25 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Matthias M Heck; Michael Souvatzoglou; Margitta Retz; Roman Nawroth; Hubert Kübler; Tobias Maurer; Mark Thalgott; Bettina M Gramer; Gregor Weirich; Ina-Christine Rondak; Ernst J Rummeny; Markus Schwaiger; Jürgen E Gschwend; Bernd Krause; Matthias Eiber Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2013-12-03 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Hebert Alberto Vargas; Alexandre G Martin-Malburet; Toshikazu Takeda; Renato B Corradi; James Eastham; Andreas Wibmer; Evis Sala; Michael J Zelefsky; Wolfgang A Weber; Hedvig Hricak Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2016-06-23 Impact factor: 3.498