OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to compare the relative conspicuity of bone metastases on short-tau inversion recovery (STIR) and diffusion-weighted MRI (DWI) whole-body MR sequences for breast, prostate and myeloma malignancies. METHODS: 44 whole-body MRI scans were reviewed retrospectively (coronal T(1) weighted, STIR and DWI with b=800). On each scan, up to four of the largest bone lesions were identified on T(1) weighting, and the region of interest signal intensity was measured on STIR and DWI, as well as the background signal intensity. The mean lesion signal to background ratio was calculated for each patient and then for each malignancy group. RESULTS: In prostate cancer patients, the DWI signal/background ratio was greater than that of STIR in 22 out of 24 patients (mean DWI lesion/background ratio 3.91, mean STIR lesion/background ratio 2.31; p=0.0001). In multiple myeloma, the DWI ratio was higher in 6/7 patients (DWI group mean ratio 7.59, STIR group mean ratio 3.7; p=0.0366). In 13 breast cancer patients, mean STIR and DWI signal/background were similar (DWI group mean ratio 4.13, group mean STIR ratio 4.26; p=0.8587). CONCLUSION: Bone lesion conspicuity measured by lesion/background signal intensity was higher on DWI b=800 than on STIR in patients with prostate cancer and multiple myeloma. DWI should be used in whole-body MR oncology protocols in these conditions to maximise lesion detection.
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to compare the relative conspicuity of bone metastases on short-tau inversion recovery (STIR) and diffusion-weighted MRI (DWI) whole-body MR sequences for breast, prostate and myeloma malignancies. METHODS: 44 whole-body MRI scans were reviewed retrospectively (coronal T(1) weighted, STIR and DWI with b=800). On each scan, up to four of the largest bone lesions were identified on T(1) weighting, and the region of interest signal intensity was measured on STIR and DWI, as well as the background signal intensity. The mean lesion signal to background ratio was calculated for each patient and then for each malignancy group. RESULTS: In prostate cancerpatients, the DWI signal/background ratio was greater than that of STIR in 22 out of 24 patients (mean DWI lesion/background ratio 3.91, mean STIR lesion/background ratio 2.31; p=0.0001). In multiple myeloma, the DWI ratio was higher in 6/7 patients (DWI group mean ratio 7.59, STIR group mean ratio 3.7; p=0.0366). In 13 breast cancerpatients, mean STIR and DWI signal/background were similar (DWI group mean ratio 4.13, group mean STIR ratio 4.26; p=0.8587). CONCLUSION: Bone lesion conspicuity measured by lesion/background signal intensity was higher on DWI b=800 than on STIR in patients with prostate cancer and multiple myeloma. DWI should be used in whole-body MR oncology protocols in these conditions to maximise lesion detection.
Authors: Andreas Gutzeit; Aleksis Doert; Johannes M Froehlich; Boris P Eckhardt; Andreas Meili; Patrick Scherr; Daniel T Schmid; Nicole Graf; Constantin A von Weymarn; Edwin M M Willemse; Christoph A Binkert Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 2.199
Authors: Till-Alexander Heusner; Sherko Kuemmel; Angela Koeninger; Monia E Hamami; Steffen Hahn; Anton Quinsten; Andreas Bockisch; Michael Forsting; Thomas Lauenstein; Gerald Antoch; Alexander Stahl Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2010-03-04 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Carolin Reischauer; Johannes M Froehlich; Dow-Mu Koh; Nicole Graf; Christian Padevit; Hubert John; Christoph A Binkert; Peter Boesiger; Andreas Gutzeit Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-09-09 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Andrea Baur-Melnyk; Sonja Buhmann; Christoph Becker; Stefan Oswald Schoenberg; Nicola Lang; Reiner Bartl; Maximilian Ferdinand Reiser Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2008-04 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Tobias Bäuerle; Jens Hillengass; Kerstin Fechtner; Christian M Zechmann; Lars Grenacher; Thomas M Moehler; Heiss Christiane; Barbara Wagner-Gund; Kai Neben; Hans-Ulrich Kauczor; Hartmut Goldschmidt; Stefan Delorme Journal: Radiology Date: 2009-08 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Wolfgang Luboldt; Rainer Küfer; Norbert Blumstein; Todd L Toussaint; Alexander Kluge; Marcus D Seemann; Hans-Joachim Luboldt Journal: Radiology Date: 2008-10-10 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Conor P Shortt; Tadhg G Gleeson; Karen A Breen; John McHugh; Martin J O'Connell; Peter J O'Gorman; Stephen J Eustace Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2009-04 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Nicholas Bhojwani; Peter Szpakowski; Sasan Partovi; Martin H Maurer; Ulrich Grosse; Hendrik von Tengg-Kobligk; Lisa Zipp-Partovi; Nathan Fergus; Christos Kosmas; Konstantin Nikolaou; Mark R Robbin Journal: Quant Imaging Med Surg Date: 2015-10
Authors: K Kubiessa; S Purz; M Gawlitza; A Kühn; J Fuchs; K G Steinhoff; A Boehm; O Sabri; R Kluge; T Kahn; P Stumpp Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2013-11-29 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: M T Freitag; S Bickelhaupt; C Ziener; K Meier-Hein; J P Radtke; J Mosebach; T-A Kuder; H-P Schlemmer; F B Laun Journal: Radiologe Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 0.635