OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of computed diffusion-weighted images (cDWIs) of b = 2000 s/mm(2) (cDWI2000) generated from DWIs of b = 0 and 1000 for prostate cancer (PCa) diagnosis in comparison with that of measured original DWIs of b = 1000 (mDWI1000) and b = 2000(mDWI2000) using 3-T MRI. METHODS: Eighty patients who underwent a preoperative MRI examination, including T2WI and DWI (b = 0, 1000, 2000 s/mm(2)), were enrolled in this study. Four combinations of images, protocol A (T2WI alone), B (T2WI + mDWI1000), C (T2WI + mDWI2000) and D (T2WI + cDWI2000), were assessed for their diagnostic capability. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (Az) and diagnostic performance were evaluated, as well as contrast ratios (CR) between cancerous and non-cancerous lesions for each DWI. RESULTS: The highest CR was obtained with cDWI2000 (0.29 ± 0.16). Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and Az of the protocols were: A: 66.3 %, 59.4 %, 63.0 %, 0.67; B: 82.6 %, 62.0 %, 72.5 %, 0.80; C: 84.1 %, 66.5 %, 75.5 %, 0.86; D: 83.2 %, 70.0 %, 76.6 %, and 0.84, respectively The specificities and accuracies of protocol C and D were significantly higher than those of protocol B (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: cDWI2000 appears to be more effective than mDWI1000, and at least as effective as mDWI2000 for PCa diagnosis.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of computed diffusion-weighted images (cDWIs) of b = 2000 s/mm(2) (cDWI2000) generated from DWIs of b = 0 and 1000 for prostate cancer (PCa) diagnosis in comparison with that of measured original DWIs of b = 1000 (mDWI1000) and b = 2000(mDWI2000) using 3-T MRI. METHODS: Eighty patients who underwent a preoperative MRI examination, including T2WI and DWI (b = 0, 1000, 2000 s/mm(2)), were enrolled in this study. Four combinations of images, protocol A (T2WI alone), B (T2WI + mDWI1000), C (T2WI + mDWI2000) and D (T2WI + cDWI2000), were assessed for their diagnostic capability. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (Az) and diagnostic performance were evaluated, as well as contrast ratios (CR) between cancerous and non-cancerous lesions for each DWI. RESULTS: The highest CR was obtained with cDWI2000 (0.29 ± 0.16). Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and Az of the protocols were: A: 66.3 %, 59.4 %, 63.0 %, 0.67; B: 82.6 %, 62.0 %, 72.5 %, 0.80; C: 84.1 %, 66.5 %, 75.5 %, 0.86; D: 83.2 %, 70.0 %, 76.6 %, and 0.84, respectively The specificities and accuracies of protocol C and D were significantly higher than those of protocol B (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: cDWI2000 appears to be more effective than mDWI1000, and at least as effective as mDWI2000 for PCa diagnosis.
Authors: R Bammer; S L Keeling; M Augustin; K P Pruessmann; R Wolf; R Stollberger; H P Hartung; F Fazekas Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2001-09 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Dow-Mu Koh; Matthew Blackledge; Anwar R Padhani; Taro Takahara; Thomas C Kwee; Martin O Leach; David J Collins Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2012-08 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Kolja M Thierfelder; Michael K Scherr; Mike Notohamiprodjo; Jakob Weiß; Olaf Dietrich; Ullrich G Mueller-Lisse; Josef Pfeuffer; Konstantin Nikolaou; Daniel Theisen Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2014-08-27 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: 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