Literature DB >> 23249646

Interscanner comparison of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in prostate cancer: 1.5 versus 3 T MRI.

Metin Sertdemir1, Stefan O Schoenberg, Steven Sourbron, Daniel Hausmann, Julia Heinzelbecker, Henrik J Michaely, Dietmar J Dinter, Anja M Weidner.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The aim of the study was the comparison of the diagnostic potential of dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging to differentiate between prostate carcinoma and normal prostate tissue as well as prostatitis at 2 different field strengths: 1.5 versus 3 T.
METHODS: Sixty-six patients with biopsy and/or prostatectomy of the prostate were included in the study. Magnetic resonance imaging was performed at 1.5 T in 20 patients with biopsy-proven prostate cancer (PC) and in 8 patients with prostatitis; at 3 T, we analyzed 27 patients with prostatectomy-proven PC and 11 patients with prostatitis. All examinations were performed using a combined body and endorectal coil protocol and a 2-dimensional TurboFLASH T1-weighted gradient echo sequence to calculate plasma flow (PF) and mean transit time (MTT) values. A total of 28 of 38 areas of normal prostate tissue, 20 of 27 areas of PC, and 8 of 11 prostatitis were analyzed at 1.5 or 3T. For the normalization, we calculated PC/normal and prostatitis/normal tissue ratios of PF and MTT for each patient.
RESULTS: Prostate cancer showed higher PF (P < 0.0001) and shorter MTT (P < 0.0001) at 3 T and at 1.5 T (P < 0.0001 for PF and P = 0.0016 for MTT) compared with the normal tissue. In comparison with the normal tissue, prostatitis had a statistically significant higher PF at 1.5 T (P = 0.0156) but not at 3 T (P = 0.17) and no significantly shorter MTT values both at 3 (P = 0.15) and 1.5 T (P = 0.25). Sensitivity and specificity for differentiating PC from prostatitis with PF were 46% and 88% at 1.5 T (cutoff ratio, 2.3) and 89% and 73% at 3 T (cutoff ratio, 1.2), respectively. Sensitivity and specificity for MTT were 77% and 100% at 1.5 T (cutoff ratio, 0.7) and 70% and 100% at 3 T (cutoff ratio, 0.6), respectively. We found no significant relationship between the Gleason score and PF/MTT (P = 0.17/0.11 for 1.5 T and P = 0.23/0.18 for 3 T).
CONCLUSIONS: The differentiation between PC and the normal tissue is possible with both field strengths. Prostate cancer can be better distinguished from prostatitis at 3 T compared with 1.5 T. The differentiation between prostatitis and the normal tissue is limited at both field strengths.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23249646     DOI: 10.1097/RLI.0b013e31827bbcbe

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Invest Radiol        ISSN: 0020-9996            Impact factor:   6.016


  8 in total

Review 1.  A meta-analysis of use of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2 (PI-RADS V2) with multiparametric MR imaging for the detection of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Li Zhang; Min Tang; Sipan Chen; Xiaoyan Lei; Xiaoling Zhang; Yi Huan
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2017-06-27       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Improving bladder cancer imaging using 3-T functional dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  Huyen T Nguyen; Kamal S Pohar; Guang Jia; Zarine K Shah; Amir Mortazavi; Debra L Zynger; Lai Wei; Daniel Clark; Xiangyu Yang; Michael V Knopp
Journal:  Invest Radiol       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 6.016

Review 3.  [Quantitative perfusion imaging in magnetic resonance imaging].

Authors:  F G Zöllner; T Gaa; F Zimmer; M M Ong; P Riffel; D Hausmann; S O Schoenberg; M Weis
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2016-02       Impact factor: 0.635

4.  Evaluation of the PI-RADS scoring system for classifying mpMRI findings in men with suspicion of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Daniel Junker; Georg Schäfer; Michael Edlinger; Christian Kremser; Jasmin Bektic; Wolfgang Horninger; Werner Jaschke; Friedrich Aigner
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2013-12-16       Impact factor: 3.411

5.  Accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for diagnosing prostate Cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Liang Zhen; Xiaoqiang Liu; Chen Yegang; Yang Yongjiao; Xu Yawei; Kang Jiaqi; Wang Xianhao; Song Yuxuan; Hu Rui; Zhang Wei; Ou Ningjing
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2019-12-23       Impact factor: 4.430

6.  Diagnostic value of 3.0 T versus 1.5 T MRI in staging prostate cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Mayur Virarkar; Janio Szklaruk; Radwan Diab; Roland Bassett; Priya Bhosale
Journal:  Pol J Radiol       Date:  2022-07-29

7.  Factors Influencing Variability in the Performance of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Detecting Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Literature Review.

Authors:  Armando Stabile; Francesco Giganti; Veeru Kasivisvanathan; Gianluca Giannarini; Caroline M Moore; Anwar R Padhani; Valeria Panebianco; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Georg Salomon; Baris Turkbey; Geert Villeirs; Jelle O Barentsz
Journal:  Eur Urol Oncol       Date:  2020-03-17

8.  The clinical utility of fMRI for identifying covert awareness in the vegetative state: a comparison of sensitivity between 3T and 1.5T.

Authors:  Davinia Fernández-Espejo; Loretta Norton; Adrian M Owen
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-04-14       Impact factor: 3.240

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.