AIM: To evaluate the impact of computed b = 1400 s/mm(2) (C-b1400) vs measured b = 1400 s/mm(2) (M-b1400) diffusion-weighted images (DWI) on lesion detection rate, image quality and quality of lesion demarcation using a modern 3T-MR system based on a small-field-of-view sequence (sFOV). METHODS: Thirty patients (PSA: 9.5 ± 8.7 ng/mL; 68 ± 12 years) referred for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the prostate were enrolled in this study. All measurements were performed on a 3T MR system. For DWI, a single-shot EPI diffusion sequence (b = 0, 100, 400, 800 s/mm²) was utilized. C-b1400 was calculated voxelwise from the ADC and diffusion images. Additionally, M-b1400 was acquired for evaluation and comparison. Lesion detection rate and maximum lesion diameters were obtained and compared. Image quality and quality of lesion demarcation were rated according to a 5-point Likert-type scale. Ratios of lesion-to-bladder as well as prostate-to-bladder signal intensity (SI) were calculated to estimate the signal-to-noise-ratio (SNR). RESULTS: Twenty-four lesions were detected on M-b1400 images and compared to C-b1400 images. C-b1400 detected three additional cancer suspicious lesions. Overall image quality was rated significantly better and SI ratios were significantly higher on C-b1400 (2.3 ± 0.8 vs 3.1 ± 1.0, P < 0.001; 5.6 ± 1.8 vs 2.8 ± 0.9, P < 0.001). Comparison of lesion size showed no significant differences between C- and M-b1400 (P = 0.22). CONCLUSION: Combination of a high b-value extrapolation and sFOV may contribute to increase diagnostic accuracy of DWI without an increase of acquisition time, which may be useful to guide targeted prostate biopsies and to improve quality of multiparametric MRI (mMRI) especially under economical aspects in a private practice setting.
AIM: To evaluate the impact of computed b = 1400 s/mm(2) (C-b1400) vs measured b = 1400 s/mm(2) (M-b1400) diffusion-weighted images (DWI) on lesion detection rate, image quality and quality of lesion demarcation using a modern 3T-MR system based on a small-field-of-view sequence (sFOV). METHODS: Thirty patients (PSA: 9.5 ± 8.7 ng/mL; 68 ± 12 years) referred for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the prostate were enrolled in this study. All measurements were performed on a 3T MR system. For DWI, a single-shot EPI diffusion sequence (b = 0, 100, 400, 800 s/mm²) was utilized. C-b1400 was calculated voxelwise from the ADC and diffusion images. Additionally, M-b1400 was acquired for evaluation and comparison. Lesion detection rate and maximum lesion diameters were obtained and compared. Image quality and quality of lesion demarcation were rated according to a 5-point Likert-type scale. Ratios of lesion-to-bladder as well as prostate-to-bladder signal intensity (SI) were calculated to estimate the signal-to-noise-ratio (SNR). RESULTS: Twenty-four lesions were detected on M-b1400 images and compared to C-b1400 images. C-b1400 detected three additional cancer suspicious lesions. Overall image quality was rated significantly better and SI ratios were significantly higher on C-b1400 (2.3 ± 0.8 vs 3.1 ± 1.0, P < 0.001; 5.6 ± 1.8 vs 2.8 ± 0.9, P < 0.001). Comparison of lesion size showed no significant differences between C- and M-b1400 (P = 0.22). CONCLUSION: Combination of a high b-value extrapolation and sFOV may contribute to increase diagnostic accuracy of DWI without an increase of acquisition time, which may be useful to guide targeted prostate biopsies and to improve quality of multiparametric MRI (mMRI) especially under economical aspects in a private practice setting.
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: Tom W J Scheenen; Jurgen Fütterer; Elisabeth Weiland; Paul van Hecke; Marc Lemort; Christian Zechmann; Heinz-Peter Schlemmer; Dale Broome; Geert Villeirs; Jianping Lu; Jelle Barentsz; Stefan Roell; Arend Heerschap Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2011-01 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Anja M Weidner; Henrik J Michaely; Andreas Lemke; Lutz Breitinger; Frederik Wenz; Alexander Marx; Stefan O Schoenberg; Dietmar J Dinter Journal: Z Med Phys Date: 2011-01-17 Impact factor: 4.820
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: Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Eric E Sigmund; Glyn Johnson; James S Babb; Thais C Mussi; Jonathan Melamed; Samir S Taneja; Vivian S Lee; Jens H Jensen Journal: Radiology Date: 2012-05-01 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: D Hausmann; N Aksöz; J von Hardenberg; T Martini; N Westhoff; S Buettner; S O Schoenberg; P Riffel Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2017-08-10 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: M T Freitag; S Bickelhaupt; C Ziener; K Meier-Hein; J P Radtke; J Mosebach; T-A Kuder; H-P Schlemmer; F B Laun Journal: Radiologe Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 0.635
Authors: Peigang Ning; Dapeng Shi; Geoffrey A Sonn; Shreyas S Vasanawala; Andreas M Loening; Pejman Ghanouni; Piotr Obara; Lewis K Shin; Richard E Fan; Brian A Hargreaves; Bruce L Daniel Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2018-02-21 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Hubert Bickel; Stephan H Polanec; Georg Wengert; Katja Pinker; Wolfgang Bogner; Thomas H Helbich; Pascal A Baltzer Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2019-05-28 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Seung Soo Lee; Dong Hoon Lee; Won Hoon Song; Jong Kil Nam; Ji Yeon Han; Hyun Jung Lee; Tae Un Kim; Sung Woo Park Journal: World J Mens Health Date: 2019-07-30 Impact factor: 5.400
Authors: Ferdinand Seith; Petros Martirosian; Konstantin Nikolaou; Christian la Fougère; Nina Schwenzer; Holger Schmidt Journal: Eur J Radiol Open Date: 2018-07-30