PURPOSE: To compare tumor detection on acquired diffusion-weighted (DW) images and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) maps, obtained using b-values of 1000 s/mm(2) and 2000 s/mm(2) , using radical prostatectomy as the reference. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In all, 29 prostate cancer patients who underwent 3T magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) including DW imaging using b-values of 1000 s/mm(2) and 2000 s/mm(2) were included. Two radiologists independently evaluated four image sets during different sessions and recorded the location and diameter of the dominant lesion: DW images acquired using b-values of 1000 s/mm(2) and 2000 s/mm(2) and ADC maps calculated using maximal b-values of 1000 s/mm(2) and 2000 s/mm(2) . Findings were correlated with the location and diameter of the dominant lesion at prostatectomy. Tumor-to-PZ contrast was also calculated, unblinded to pathology. RESULTS: Both readers achieved significantly higher sensitivity for DW images obtained using a b-value of 2000 s/mm(2) than 1000 s/mm(2) (P < 0.001), although there was no difference in sensitivity between ADC maps calculated using the two b-values (P ≥ 0.309). Tumor-to-PZ contrast was higher for DW images using a b-value of 2000 s/mm(2) (P = 0.067), although it was not different between the two corresponding ADC maps (P = 0.544). For both readers, correlations with tumor diameters were higher for either ADC map (r = 0.59-0.73) than for either acquired DW image set (r = 0.03-0.57). CONCLUSION: Use of a b-value of 2000 s/mm(2) compared with a b-value of 1000 s/mm(2) resulted in improved tumor sensitivity and higher tumor-to-PZ contrast on the acquired DW images, although performance of the ADC maps corresponding with the two b-values was similar. Correlation with tumor size was greater for either ADC map than for either acquired DW image set.
PURPOSE: To compare tumor detection on acquired diffusion-weighted (DW) images and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) maps, obtained using b-values of 1000 s/mm(2) and 2000 s/mm(2) , using radical prostatectomy as the reference. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In all, 29 prostate cancerpatients who underwent 3T magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) including DW imaging using b-values of 1000 s/mm(2) and 2000 s/mm(2) were included. Two radiologists independently evaluated four image sets during different sessions and recorded the location and diameter of the dominant lesion: DW images acquired using b-values of 1000 s/mm(2) and 2000 s/mm(2) and ADC maps calculated using maximal b-values of 1000 s/mm(2) and 2000 s/mm(2) . Findings were correlated with the location and diameter of the dominant lesion at prostatectomy. Tumor-to-PZ contrast was also calculated, unblinded to pathology. RESULTS: Both readers achieved significantly higher sensitivity for DW images obtained using a b-value of 2000 s/mm(2) than 1000 s/mm(2) (P < 0.001), although there was no difference in sensitivity between ADC maps calculated using the two b-values (P ≥ 0.309). Tumor-to-PZ contrast was higher for DW images using a b-value of 2000 s/mm(2) (P = 0.067), although it was not different between the two corresponding ADC maps (P = 0.544). For both readers, correlations with tumor diameters were higher for either ADC map (r = 0.59-0.73) than for either acquired DW image set (r = 0.03-0.57). CONCLUSION: Use of a b-value of 2000 s/mm(2) compared with a b-value of 1000 s/mm(2) resulted in improved tumor sensitivity and higher tumor-to-PZ contrast on the acquired DW images, although performance of the ADC maps corresponding with the two b-values was similar. Correlation with tumor size was greater for either ADC map than for either acquired DW image set.
Authors: Anna K Paschall; S Mojdeh Mirmomen; Rolf Symons; Amir Pourmorteza; Rabindra Gautam; Amil Sahai; Andrew J Dwyer; Maria J Merino; Adam R Metwalli; W Marston Linehan; Ashkan A Malayeri Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2018-09
Authors: Sandeep Sankineni; Bradford J Wood; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Annerleim Walton Diaz; Anthony N Hoang; Peter A Pinto; Peter L Choyke; Barış Türkbey Journal: Diagn Interv Radiol Date: 2014-11 Impact factor: 2.630
Authors: Kinzya B Grant; Harsh K Agarwal; Joanna H Shih; Marcelino Bernardo; Yuxi Pang; Dagane Daar; Maria J Merino; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey Journal: Abdom Imaging Date: 2015-03
Authors: Gregory T Chesnut; Amy L Tin; Arjun Sivaraman; Toshikazu Takeda; Taehyoung Lee; Jonathan Fainberg; Nicole Benfante; Daniel D Sjoberg; Hebert Alberto Vargas; Samson W Fine; Peter T Scardino; James A Eastham; Jonathan A Coleman; Karim A Touijer; Michael J Zelefsky; Behfar Ehdaie Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2021-02-12 Impact factor: 2.954
Authors: Yin Xi; Alexander Liu; Franklin Olumba; Parker Lawson; Daniel N Costa; Qing Yuan; Gaurav Khatri; Takeshi Yokoo; Ivan Pedrosa; Robert E Lenkinski Journal: Quant Imaging Med Surg Date: 2018-07