AIM: To evaluate the value of administration of hyoscine-N-butyl-bromide (HBB) for image quality magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the prostate. METHODS: Seventy patients were retrospectively included in the study. Thirty-five patients were examined with administration of 40 milligrams of HBB (Buscopan(®); Boehringer, Ingelheim, Germany); 35 patients were examined without HBB. A multiparametric MRI protocol was performed on a 3.0 Tesla scanner without using an endorectal coil. The following criteria were evaluated independently by two experienced radiologists on a five-point Likert scale: anatomical details (delineation between peripheral and transitional zone of the prostate, visualisation of the capsule, depiction of the neurovascular bundles); visualisation of lymph nodes; motion related artefacts; and overall image quality. RESULTS: Comparison of anatomical details between the two cohorts showed no statistically significant difference (3.9 ± 0.7 vs 4.0 ± 0.9, P = 0.54, and 3.8 ± 0.7 vs 4.2 ± 0.6, P = 0.07) for both readers. There was no significant advantage regarding depiction of local and iliac lymph nodes (3.9 ± 0.6 vs 4.2 ± 0.6, P = 0.07, and 3.8 ± 0.9 vs 4.1 ± 0.8, P = 0.19). Motion artefacts were rated as "none" to "few" in both groups and showed no statistical difference (2.3 ± 1.0 vs 1.9 ± 0.9, P = 0.19, and 2.3 ± 1.1 vs 1.9 ± 0.7, P = 0.22). Overall image quality was rated "good" in average for both cohorts without significant difference (4.0 ± 0.6 vs 4.0 ± 0.9, P = 0.78, and 3.8 ± 0.8 vs 4.2 ± 0.6, P = 0.09). CONCLUSION: The results demonstrated no significant effect of HBB administration on image quality. The study suggests that use of HBB is not mandatory for MRI of the prostate at 3.0 Tesla.
AIM: To evaluate the value of administration of hyoscine-N-butyl-bromide (HBB) for image quality magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the prostate. METHODS: Seventy patients were retrospectively included in the study. Thirty-five patients were examined with administration of 40 milligrams of HBB (Buscopan(®); Boehringer, Ingelheim, Germany); 35 patients were examined without HBB. A multiparametric MRI protocol was performed on a 3.0 Tesla scanner without using an endorectal coil. The following criteria were evaluated independently by two experienced radiologists on a five-point Likert scale: anatomical details (delineation between peripheral and transitional zone of the prostate, visualisation of the capsule, depiction of the neurovascular bundles); visualisation of lymph nodes; motion related artefacts; and overall image quality. RESULTS: Comparison of anatomical details between the two cohorts showed no statistically significant difference (3.9 ± 0.7 vs 4.0 ± 0.9, P = 0.54, and 3.8 ± 0.7 vs 4.2 ± 0.6, P = 0.07) for both readers. There was no significant advantage regarding depiction of local and iliac lymph nodes (3.9 ± 0.6 vs 4.2 ± 0.6, P = 0.07, and 3.8 ± 0.9 vs 4.1 ± 0.8, P = 0.19). Motion artefacts were rated as "none" to "few" in both groups and showed no statistical difference (2.3 ± 1.0 vs 1.9 ± 0.9, P = 0.19, and 2.3 ± 1.1 vs 1.9 ± 0.7, P = 0.22). Overall image quality was rated "good" in average for both cohorts without significant difference (4.0 ± 0.6 vs 4.0 ± 0.9, P = 0.78, and 3.8 ± 0.8 vs 4.2 ± 0.6, P = 0.09). CONCLUSION: The results demonstrated no significant effect of HBB administration on image quality. The study suggests that use of HBB is not mandatory for MRI of the prostate at 3.0 Tesla.
Entities:
Keywords:
3 Tesla; Buscopan; Butylscopolamine; Magnetic resonance imaging; Motion artefacts; Prostate cancer
Authors: B Nicolas Bloch; Neil M Rofsky; Ronaldo H Baroni; Robert P Marquis; Ivan Pedrosa; Robert E Lenkinski Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2004-08 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Jacob Sosna; Ivan Pedrosa; William C Dewolf; Houman Mahallati; Robert E Lenkinski; Neil M Rofsky Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2004-08 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Thomas Hambrock; Diederik M Somford; Caroline Hoeks; Stefan A W Bouwense; Henkjan Huisman; Derya Yakar; Inge M van Oort; J Alfred Witjes; Jurgen J Fütterer; Jelle O Barentsz Journal: J Urol Date: 2009-12-14 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Michael Meier-Schroers; Christian Marx; Frederic Carsten Schmeel; Karsten Wolter; Jürgen Gieseke; Wolfgang Block; Alois Martin Sprinkart; Frank Traeber; Winfried Willinek; Hans Heinz Schild; Guido Matthias Kukuk Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2017-07-07 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: T Ullrich; M Quentin; A K Schmaltz; C Arsov; C Rubbert; D Blondin; R Rabenalt; P Albers; G Antoch; L Schimmöller Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2017-07-07 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Cynthia Schmidt; Andreas M Hötker; Urs J Muehlematter; Irene A Burger; Olivio F Donati; Borna K Barth Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2021-03-26