Francisco Donato1, Daniel N Costa2, Qing Yuan1, Neil M Rofsky1, Robert E Lenkinski1, Ivan Pedrosa1. 1. Department of Radiology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, 5323 Harry Hines Blvd, Dallas, TX 75390-9061. 2. Department of Radiology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, 5323 Harry Hines Blvd, Dallas, TX 75390-9061. Electronic address: Daniel.Costa@UTSouthwestern.edu.
Abstract
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Image distortion on diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) of the prostate in 3T endorectal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examinations is common. The aim of this study was to determine the degree of distortion on DWI using a state-of-the-art clinical protocol and to explore the main contributors to geometric distortion. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty consecutive patients underwent 3T MRI of the prostate with an endorectal coil filled with air (n = 20) or barium sulfate (n = 20). Distortion was measured as the maximum displacement of the outer boundary of the prostate on DWI relative to T2-weighted imaging. The effects of phase-encoding direction, receiver bandwidth, and parallel imaging were then assessed in a prostate phantom on two MRI scanners from different manufacturers. RESULTS: There was no statistical difference in the mean displacement of the prostate on DWI between the air cohort (1.8 ± 1.2 mm, range 0-4.2 mm) and barium cohort (1.8 ± 2.2 mm, range 0-9 mm). Displacement of the prostate was observed in the phase-encoding direction. Phantom experiments demonstrated a horizontal displacement of 6.0 mm in the phase-encoding direction, which decreased with the use of parallel imaging and higher bandwidth. Geometric distortion was similar for all b values and across manufacturers. CONCLUSIONS: Geometric distortion on DWI of the prostate is common in the phase-encoding direction and does not improve with inflating the coil with barium sulfate. Strategies to reduce this artifact include the use of higher bandwidth and accelerated imaging. Correction of this phenomenon should improve localization of prostate cancer, particularly important for targeted prostate biopsies or focal therapies.
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Image distortion on diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) of the prostate in 3T endorectal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examinations is common. The aim of this study was to determine the degree of distortion on DWI using a state-of-the-art clinical protocol and to explore the main contributors to geometric distortion. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty consecutive patients underwent 3T MRI of the prostate with an endorectal coil filled with air (n = 20) or barium sulfate (n = 20). Distortion was measured as the maximum displacement of the outer boundary of the prostate on DWI relative to T2-weighted imaging. The effects of phase-encoding direction, receiver bandwidth, and parallel imaging were then assessed in a prostate phantom on two MRI scanners from different manufacturers. RESULTS: There was no statistical difference in the mean displacement of the prostate on DWI between the air cohort (1.8 ± 1.2 mm, range 0-4.2 mm) and barium cohort (1.8 ± 2.2 mm, range 0-9 mm). Displacement of the prostate was observed in the phase-encoding direction. Phantom experiments demonstrated a horizontal displacement of 6.0 mm in the phase-encoding direction, which decreased with the use of parallel imaging and higher bandwidth. Geometric distortion was similar for all b values and across manufacturers. CONCLUSIONS: Geometric distortion on DWI of the prostate is common in the phase-encoding direction and does not improve with inflating the coil with barium sulfate. Strategies to reduce this artifact include the use of higher bandwidth and accelerated imaging. Correction of this phenomenon should improve localization of prostate cancer, particularly important for targeted prostate biopsies or focal therapies.
Authors: Aytekin Oto; Cheng Yang; Arda Kayhan; Maria Tretiakova; Tatjana Antic; Christine Schmid-Tannwald; Scott Eggener; Gregory S Karczmar; Walter M Stadler Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2011-12 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Courtney A Woodfield; Glenn A Tung; David J Grand; John A Pezzullo; Jason T Machan; Joseph F Renzulli Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Deanna L Langer; Theodorus H van der Kwast; Andrew J Evans; John Trachtenberg; Brian C Wilson; Masoom A Haider Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2009-08 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Yael Rosen; B Nicolas Bloch; Robert E Lenkinski; Robert L Greenman; Robert P Marquis; Neil M Rofsky Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2007-05 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Masoom A Haider; Theodorus H van der Kwast; Jeff Tanguay; Andrew J Evans; Ali-Tahir Hashmi; Gina Lockwood; John Trachtenberg Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2007-08 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Pascal O Zinn; Bhanu Mahajan; Bhanu Majadan; Pratheesh Sathyan; Sanjay K Singh; Sadhan Majumder; Ferenc A Jolesz; Rivka R Colen Journal: PLoS One Date: 2011-10-05 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Kevin C McCammack; Natalie M Schenker-Ahmed; Nathan S White; Shaun R Best; Robert M Marks; Jared Heimbigner; Christopher J Kane; J Kellogg Parsons; Joshua M Kuperman; Hauke Bartsch; Rahul S Desikan; Rebecca A Rakow-Penner; Michael A Liss; Daniel J A Margolis; Steven S Raman; Ahmed Shabaik; Anders M Dale; David S Karow Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2016-05
Authors: Andriy Fedorov; Kemal Tuncali; Lawrence P Panych; Janice Fairhurst; Elmira Hassanzadeh; Ravi T Seethamraju; Clare M Tempany; Stephan E Maier Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2016-05-27 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: R A Rakow-Penner; N S White; J K Parsons; H W Choi; M A Liss; J M Kuperman; N Schenker-Ahmed; H Bartsch; R F Mattrey; W G Bradley; A Shabaik; J Huang; D J A Margolis; S S Raman; L Marks; C J Kane; R E Reiter; D S Karow; A M Dale Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2015-01-06 Impact factor: 5.554
Authors: Pelin Aksit Ciris; Jr-Yuan George Chiou; Daniel I Glazer; Tzu-Cheng Chao; Clare M Tempany-Afdhal; Bruno Madore; Stephan E Maier Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2019-04 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Ryan L Brunsing; Natalie M Schenker-Ahmed; Nathan S White; J Kellogg Parsons; Christopher Kane; Joshua Kuperman; Hauke Bartsch; Andrew Karim Kader; Rebecca Rakow-Penner; Tyler M Seibert; Daniel Margolis; Steven S Raman; Carrie R McDonald; Nikdokht Farid; Santosh Kesari; Donna Hansel; Ahmed Shabaik; Anders M Dale; David S Karow Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2016-08-16 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Rebecca A Rakow-Penner; Nathan S White; Daniel J A Margolis; John Kellogg Parsons; Natalie Schenker-Ahmed; Joshua M Kuperman; Hauke Bartsch; Hyung W Choi; William G Bradley; Ahmed Shabaik; Jiaoti Huang; Michael A Liss; Leonard Marks; Christopher J Kane; Robert E Reiter; Steven S Raman; David S Karow; Anders M Dale Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2015-07-26 Impact factor: 2.546