PURPOSE: To demonstrate dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the prostate with both high spatial and temporal resolution via a combination of golden-angle radial k-space sampling, compressed sensing, and parallel-imaging reconstruction (GRASP), and to compare image quality and lesion depiction between GRASP and conventional DCE in prostate cancer patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty prostate cancer patients underwent two 3T prostate MRI examinations on separate dates, one using standard DCE (spatial resolution 3.0 × 1.9 × 1.9 mm, temporal resolution 5.5 sec) and the other using GRASP (spatial resolution 3.0 × 1.1 × 1.1 mm, temporal resolution 2.3 sec). Two radiologists assessed measures of image quality and dominant lesion size. The experienced reader recorded differences in contrast arrival times between the dominant lesion and benign prostate. RESULTS: Compared with standard DCE, GRASP demonstrated significantly better clarity of the capsule, peripheral/transition zone boundary, urethra, and periprostatic vessels; image sharpness; and lesion conspicuity for both readers (P < 0.001-0.020). GRASP showed improved interreader correlation for lesion size (GRASP: r = 0.691-0.824, standard: r = 0.495-0.542). In 8/20 cases, only GRASP showed earlier contrast arrival in tumor than benign; in no case did only standard DCE show earlier contrast arrival in tumor. CONCLUSION: High spatiotemporal resolution prostate DCE is possible with GRASP, which has the potential to improve image quality and lesion depiction as compared with standard DCE.
PURPOSE: To demonstrate dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the prostate with both high spatial and temporal resolution via a combination of golden-angle radial k-space sampling, compressed sensing, and parallel-imaging reconstruction (GRASP), and to compare image quality and lesion depiction between GRASP and conventional DCE in prostate cancerpatients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty prostate cancerpatients underwent two 3T prostate MRI examinations on separate dates, one using standard DCE (spatial resolution 3.0 × 1.9 × 1.9 mm, temporal resolution 5.5 sec) and the other using GRASP (spatial resolution 3.0 × 1.1 × 1.1 mm, temporal resolution 2.3 sec). Two radiologists assessed measures of image quality and dominant lesion size. The experienced reader recorded differences in contrast arrival times between the dominant lesion and benign prostate. RESULTS: Compared with standard DCE, GRASP demonstrated significantly better clarity of the capsule, peripheral/transition zone boundary, urethra, and periprostatic vessels; image sharpness; and lesion conspicuity for both readers (P < 0.001-0.020). GRASP showed improved interreader correlation for lesion size (GRASP: r = 0.691-0.824, standard: r = 0.495-0.542). In 8/20 cases, only GRASP showed earlier contrast arrival in tumor than benign; in no case did only standard DCE show earlier contrast arrival in tumor. CONCLUSION: High spatiotemporal resolution prostate DCE is possible with GRASP, which has the potential to improve image quality and lesion depiction as compared with standard DCE.
Authors: Caroline M A Hoeks; Jelle O Barentsz; Thomas Hambrock; Derya Yakar; Diederik M Somford; Stijn W T P J Heijmink; Tom W J Scheenen; Pieter C Vos; Henkjan Huisman; Inge M van Oort; J Alfred Witjes; Arend Heerschap; Jurgen J Fütterer Journal: Radiology Date: 2011-10 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Hersh Chandarana; Tobias K Block; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Ruth P Lim; Danny Kim; David J Mossa; James S Babb; Berthold Kiefer; Vivian S Lee Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2011-10 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Rafael M Azevedo; Rafael O P de Campos; Miguel Ramalho; Vasco Herédia; Brian M Dale; Richard C Semelka Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2011-09 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Oguz Akin; David H Gultekin; Hebert Alberto Vargas; Junting Zheng; Chaya Moskowitz; Xin Pei; Dahlia Sperling; Lawrence H Schwartz; Hedvig Hricak; Michael J Zelefsky Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2011-05-01 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Louise Dickinson; Hashim U Ahmed; Clare Allen; Jelle O Barentsz; Brendan Carey; Jurgen J Futterer; Stijn W Heijmink; Peter J Hoskin; Alex Kirkham; Anwar R Padhani; Raj Persad; Philippe Puech; Shonit Punwani; Aslam S Sohaib; Bertrand Tombal; Arnauld Villers; Jan van der Meulen; Mark Emberton Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2010-12-21 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Vinay Prabhu; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Ricardo Otazo; Daniel K Sodickson; Stella K Kang Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2019-01-10 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Silvin Paul Knight; Jacinta Elizabeth Browne; James Frances Mary Meaney; Andrew John Fagan Journal: MAGMA Date: 2017-04-10 Impact factor: 2.310
Authors: Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Luke A Ginocchio; Daniel Cornfeld; Adam T Froemming; Rajan T Gupta; Baris Turkbey; Antonio C Westphalen; James S Babb; Daniel J Margolis Journal: Radiology Date: 2016-04-01 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Yi Guo; R Marc Lebel; Yinghua Zhu; Sajan Goud Lingala; Mark S Shiroishi; Meng Law; Krishna Nayak Journal: Med Phys Date: 2016-05 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Arjun V Balar; William C Huang; Kimberly Jackson; Kent P Friedman Journal: Clin Nucl Med Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 7.794
Authors: Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Anunita Khasgiwala; Ankur M Doshi; Justin M Ream; Samir S Taneja; Herbert Lepor Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2017-01