OBJECTIVES: The purpose of our study was to evaluate the use of 2D-selective, parallel-transmit excitation magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for diffusion-weighted echo-planar imaging (pTX-EPI) of the prostate, and to compare it to conventional, single-shot EPI (c-EPI). METHODS: The MRI examinations of 35 patients were evaluated in this prospective study. PTX-EPI was performed with a TX-acceleration factor of 1.7 and a field of view (FOV) of 150 × 90 mm(2), whereas c-EPI used a full FOV of 380 × 297 mm(2). Two readers evaluated three different aspects of image quality on 5-point Likert scales. To quantify distortion artefacts, maximum diameters and prostate volume were determined for both techniques and compared to T2-weighted imaging. RESULTS: The zoomed pTX-EPI was superior to c-EPI with respect to overall image quality (3.39 ± 0.62 vs 2.45 ± 0.67) and anatomic differentiability (3.29 ± 0.65 vs 2.41 ± 0.65), each with p < 0.0001. Artefacts were significantly less severe in pTX-EPI (0.93 ± 0.73 vs 1.49 ± 1.08), p < 0.001. The quantitative analysis yielded a higher agreement of pTX-EPI with T2-weighted imaging than c-EPI with respect to coronal (ICCs: 0.95 vs 0.93) and sagittal (0.86 vs 0.73) diameters as well as prostate volume (0.94 vs 0.92). Apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values did not differ significantly between the two techniques (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Zoomed pTX-EPI leads to substantial improvements in diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) of the prostate with respect to different aspects of image quality and severity of artefacts. KEY POINTS: Recent technical developments in MRI allow the use of accelerated, spatially-selective excitation (parallel-transmit, pTX). pTX can be used for zoomed echo-planar prostate imaging (pTX-EPI). pTX-EPI improves different aspects of image quality in prostate MRI. Distortion artefacts are reduced by the use of pTX-EPI in prostate MRI. Further studies should aim at assessing the diagnostic accuracy of pTX-EPI.
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of our study was to evaluate the use of 2D-selective, parallel-transmit excitation magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for diffusion-weighted echo-planar imaging (pTX-EPI) of the prostate, and to compare it to conventional, single-shot EPI (c-EPI). METHODS: The MRI examinations of 35 patients were evaluated in this prospective study. PTX-EPI was performed with a TX-acceleration factor of 1.7 and a field of view (FOV) of 150 × 90 mm(2), whereas c-EPI used a full FOV of 380 × 297 mm(2). Two readers evaluated three different aspects of image quality on 5-point Likert scales. To quantify distortion artefacts, maximum diameters and prostate volume were determined for both techniques and compared to T2-weighted imaging. RESULTS: The zoomed pTX-EPI was superior to c-EPI with respect to overall image quality (3.39 ± 0.62 vs 2.45 ± 0.67) and anatomic differentiability (3.29 ± 0.65 vs 2.41 ± 0.65), each with p < 0.0001. Artefacts were significantly less severe in pTX-EPI (0.93 ± 0.73 vs 1.49 ± 1.08), p < 0.001. The quantitative analysis yielded a higher agreement of pTX-EPI with T2-weighted imaging than c-EPI with respect to coronal (ICCs: 0.95 vs 0.93) and sagittal (0.86 vs 0.73) diameters as well as prostate volume (0.94 vs 0.92). Apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values did not differ significantly between the two techniques (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Zoomed pTX-EPI leads to substantial improvements in diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) of the prostate with respect to different aspects of image quality and severity of artefacts. KEY POINTS: Recent technical developments in MRI allow the use of accelerated, spatially-selective excitation (parallel-transmit, pTX). pTX can be used for zoomed echo-planar prostate imaging (pTX-EPI). pTX-EPI improves different aspects of image quality in prostate MRI. Distortion artefacts are reduced by the use of pTX-EPI in prostate MRI. Further studies should aim at assessing the diagnostic accuracy of pTX-EPI.
Authors: Petra Mürtz; Marius Kaschner; Frank Träber; Guido M Kukuk; Sarah M Büdenbender; Dirk Skowasch; Jürgen Gieseke; Hans H Schild; Winfried A Willinek Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2011-12-15 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Winfried A Willinek; Jürgen Gieseke; Guido M Kukuk; Michael Nelles; Roy König; Nuschin Morakkabati-Spitz; Frank Träber; Daniel Thomas; Christiane K Kuhl; Hans H Schild Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Diederik M Somford; Caroline M Hoeks; Christina A Hulsbergen-van de Kaa; Thomas Hambrock; Jurgen J Fütterer; J Alfred Witjes; Chris H Bangma; Henk Vergunst; Geert A Smits; Jorg R Oddens; Inge M van Oort; Jelle O Barentsz Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2013-03 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Thomas Hambrock; Diederik M Somford; Henkjan J Huisman; Inge M van Oort; J Alfred Witjes; Christina A Hulsbergen-van de Kaa; Thomas Scheenen; Jelle O Barentsz Journal: Radiology Date: 2011-05 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Caroline M A Hoeks; Diederik M Somford; Inge M van Oort; Henk Vergunst; Jorg R Oddens; Geert A Smits; Monique J Roobol; Meelan Bul; Thomas Hambrock; J Alfred Witjes; Jurgen J Fütterer; Christina A Hulsbergen-van de Kaa; Jelle O Barentsz Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2014-03 Impact factor: 6.016
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: 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: 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