T Metens1, D Miranda, J Absil, C Matos. 1. Resonance Magnetique, Hôpital Erasme, Université Libre de Bruxelles, 808 Route de Lennik, 1070 Bruxelles, Belgique, Belgium. tmetens@ulb.ac.be
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine an optimal b value to visualise prostate cancer using diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging at 3 T. METHODS: Forty one patients with biopsy proven prostate cancer underwent 3 T diffusion-weighted MRI performed with 5 b values (0, 1,000, 1,500, 2,000, 2,500 s/mm(2)) using a 16-channel coil. Best lesion visibility, the central gland-lesion (CG-L) and the peripheral zone-lesion (PZ-L) contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) were compared between different b value images, apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) were measured. In a subset of 29 patients a high resolution b1,500 s/mm(2)diffusion-weighted sequence was additionally assessed. RESULTS: The b = 1,500 s/mm(2) and b = 2,000 s/mm(2) images provided the best lesion visibility respectively in 27/41 and in 10/41 patients. The highest CG-L and PZ-L CNR were obtained with b = 1,500 s/mm(2) (P < 0.0001). The mean ADC value calculated from 0 to 1,500 s/mm(2) b values in cancer lesions (ADC = 736 ± 173 10(-6) mm(2)/s) was statistically significantly lower than in the peripheral zone (ADC = 1,338 ± 256 10(-6) mm(2)/s, P < 0.0001) and in the central gland (ADC = 1,270 ± 239 10(-6) mm(2)/s, P < 0.0001). The high resolution diffusion sequence was judged of better lesion visibility than (17/29) or equivalent to (6/29) the best images from the 5b sequence. CONCLUSION: At 3 T, prostate cancer lesions are best depicted with b = 1,500 s/mm(2) and b = 2,000 s/mm(2) images, b = 1,500 s/mm(2) high-resolution diffusion images improve the image quality and contrast. KEY POINTS: • Multiple b ≥ 1,000 s/mm ( 2 ) 3 T-DW Magnetic Resonance Imaging provides excellent prostate cancer depiction. • Prostate DWI and ADC maps are attainable at 3 T without endorectal coil. • Prostate cancer depiction is improved on high resolution b 1,500 s/mm ( 2 ) 3 T-DWI.
OBJECTIVE: To determine an optimal b value to visualise prostate cancer using diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging at 3 T. METHODS: Forty one patients with biopsy proven prostate cancer underwent 3 T diffusion-weighted MRI performed with 5 b values (0, 1,000, 1,500, 2,000, 2,500 s/mm(2)) using a 16-channel coil. Best lesion visibility, the central gland-lesion (CG-L) and the peripheral zone-lesion (PZ-L) contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) were compared between different b value images, apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) were measured. In a subset of 29 patients a high resolution b1,500 s/mm(2)diffusion-weighted sequence was additionally assessed. RESULTS: The b = 1,500 s/mm(2) and b = 2,000 s/mm(2) images provided the best lesion visibility respectively in 27/41 and in 10/41 patients. The highest CG-L and PZ-L CNR were obtained with b = 1,500 s/mm(2) (P < 0.0001). The mean ADC value calculated from 0 to 1,500 s/mm(2) b values in cancer lesions (ADC = 736 ± 173 10(-6) mm(2)/s) was statistically significantly lower than in the peripheral zone (ADC = 1,338 ± 256 10(-6) mm(2)/s, P < 0.0001) and in the central gland (ADC = 1,270 ± 239 10(-6) mm(2)/s, P < 0.0001). The high resolution diffusion sequence was judged of better lesion visibility than (17/29) or equivalent to (6/29) the best images from the 5b sequence. CONCLUSION: At 3 T, prostate cancer lesions are best depicted with b = 1,500 s/mm(2) and b = 2,000 s/mm(2) images, b = 1,500 s/mm(2) high-resolution diffusion images improve the image quality and contrast. KEY POINTS: • Multiple b ≥ 1,000 s/mm ( 2 ) 3 T-DW Magnetic Resonance Imaging provides excellent prostate cancer depiction. • Prostate DWI and ADC maps are attainable at 3 T without endorectal coil. • Prostate cancer depiction is improved on high resolution b 1,500 s/mm ( 2 ) 3 T-DWI.
Authors: Olaf Dietrich; José G Raya; Scott B Reeder; Maximilian F Reiser; Stefan O Schoenberg Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2007-08 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Xiangtian Kong; Benjamin E Niver; Douglas S Berkman; Jonathan Melamed; James S Babb; Samir S Taneja Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2011-01 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Thomas Hambrock; Diederik M Somford; Henkjan J Huisman; Inge M van Oort; J Alfred Witjes; Christina A Hulsbergen-van de Kaa; Thomas Scheenen; Jelle O Barentsz Journal: Radiology Date: 2011-05 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Thomas C Kwee; Taro Takahara; Tetsu Niwa; Marko K Ivancevic; Gwenael Herigault; Marc Van Cauteren; Peter R Luijten Journal: MAGMA Date: 2009-09-02 Impact factor: 2.310
Authors: Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Hersh Chandarana; Nicole Hindman; Fang-Ming Deng; James S Babb; Samir S Taneja; Christian Geppert Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2013-06-12 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Y Ueno; S Takahashi; Y Ohno; K Kitajima; M Yui; Y Kassai; F Kawakami; H Miyake; K Sugimura Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2015-01-21 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Richard C Wu; Amir H Lebastchi; Boris A Hadaschik; Mark Emberton; Caroline Moore; Pilar Laguna; Jurgen J Fütterer; Arvin K George Journal: World J Urol Date: 2021-01-04 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Leonardo K Bittencourt; Ulrike I Attenberger; Daniel Lima; Ralph Strecker; Andre de Oliveira; Stefan O Schoenberg; Emerson L Gasparetto; Daniel Hausmann Journal: World J Radiol Date: 2014-06-28
Authors: Elmira Hassanzadeh; Francesco Alessandrino; Olutayo I Olubiyi; Daniel I Glazer; Robert V Mulkern; Andriy Fedorov; Clare M Tempany; Fiona M Fennessy Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2018-05