A Hoang Dinh1, R Souchon1, C Melodelima2, F Bratan3, F Mège-Lechevallier4, M Colombel5, O Rouvière6. 1. Inserm, U1032, LabTau, Lyon 69003, France. 2. Université Joseph-Fourier, laboratoire d'écologie Alpine, BP 53, Grenoble 38041, France; CNRS, UMR 5553, BP 53, Grenoble 38041, France. 3. Inserm, U1032, LabTau, Lyon 69003, France; Hospices civils de Lyon, department of urinary and vascular radiology, hôpital Édouard-Herriot, Lyon 69437, France; Université de Lyon, Lyon 69003, France; Université Lyon 1, faculté de médecine Lyon Est, Lyon 69003, France. 4. Hospices civils de Lyon, department of pathology, hôpital Édouard-Herriot, Lyon, 69437, France. 5. Université de Lyon, Lyon 69003, France; Université Lyon 1, faculté de médecine Lyon Est, Lyon 69003, France; Hospices civils de Lyon, department of urology, hôpital Édouard-Herriot, Lyon, 69437, France. 6. Inserm, U1032, LabTau, Lyon 69003, France; Hospices civils de Lyon, department of urinary and vascular radiology, hôpital Édouard-Herriot, Lyon 69437, France; Université de Lyon, Lyon 69003, France; Université Lyon 1, faculté de médecine Lyon Est, Lyon 69003, France. Electronic address: Olivier.rouviere@netcourrier.com.
Abstract
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To assess the prostate T2 value as a predictor of malignancy on two different 3T scanners. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eighty-three pre-prostatectomy multiparametric MRIs were retrospectively evaluated [67 obtained on a General Electric MRI (scanner 1) and 16 on a Philips MRI (scanner 2)]. After correlation with prostatectomy specimens, readers measured the T2 value of regions-of-interest categorized as "cancers", "false positive lesions", or "normal tissue". RESULTS: On scanner 1, in PZ, cancers had significantly lower T2 values than false positive lesions (P=0.02) and normal tissue (P=2×10(-9)). Gleason≥6 cancers had similar T2 values than false positive lesions and significantly higher T2 values than Gleason≥7 cancers (P=0.009). T2 values corresponding to a 25% and 75% risk of Gleason≥7 malignancy were respectively 132 ms (95% CI: 129-135 ms) and 77 ms (95% CI: 74-81 ms). In TZ, cancers had significantly lower T2 values than normal tissue (P=0.008), but not than false positive findings. Mean T2 values measured on scanner 2 were not significantly different than those measured on scanner 1 for all tissue classes. CONCLUSION: All tested tissue classes had similar mean T2 values on both scanners. In PZ, the T2 value was a significant predictor of Gleason≥7 cancers.
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To assess the prostate T2 value as a predictor of malignancy on two different 3T scanners. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eighty-three pre-prostatectomy multiparametric MRIs were retrospectively evaluated [67 obtained on a General Electric MRI (scanner 1) and 16 on a Philips MRI (scanner 2)]. After correlation with prostatectomy specimens, readers measured the T2 value of regions-of-interest categorized as "cancers", "false positive lesions", or "normal tissue". RESULTS: On scanner 1, in PZ, cancers had significantly lower T2 values than false positive lesions (P=0.02) and normal tissue (P=2×10(-9)). Gleason≥6 cancers had similar T2 values than false positive lesions and significantly higher T2 values than Gleason≥7 cancers (P=0.009). T2 values corresponding to a 25% and 75% risk of Gleason≥7 malignancy were respectively 132 ms (95% CI: 129-135 ms) and 77 ms (95% CI: 74-81 ms). In TZ, cancers had significantly lower T2 values than normal tissue (P=0.008), but not than false positive findings. Mean T2 values measured on scanner 2 were not significantly different than those measured on scanner 1 for all tissue classes. CONCLUSION: All tested tissue classes had similar mean T2 values on both scanners. In PZ, the T2 value was a significant predictor of Gleason≥7 cancers.
Authors: Armando Stabile; Francesco Giganti; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Samir S Taneja; Geert Villeirs; Inderbir S Gill; Clare Allen; Mark Emberton; Caroline M Moore; Veeru Kasivisvanathan Journal: Nat Rev Urol Date: 2019-07-17 Impact factor: 14.432
Authors: Alice C Yu; Chaitra Badve; Lee E Ponsky; Shivani Pahwa; Sara Dastmalchian; Matthew Rogers; Yun Jiang; Seunghee Margevicius; Mark Schluchter; William Tabayoyong; Robert Abouassaly; Debra McGivney; Mark A Griswold; Vikas Gulani Journal: Radiology Date: 2017-02-10 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Pelin Aksit Ciris; Mukund Balasubramanian; Ravi T Seethamraju; Junichi Tokuda; Jonathan Scalera; Tobias Penzkofer; Fiona M Fennessy; Clare M Tempany-Afdhal; Kemal Tuncali; Robert V Mulkern Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2016-05-31 Impact factor: 4.044
Authors: Petra J van Houdt; Harsh K Agarwal; Laurens D van Buuren; Stijn W T P J Heijmink; Søren Haack; Henk G van der Poel; Ghazaleh Ghobadi; Floris J Pos; Johannes M Peeters; Peter L Choyke; Uulke A van der Heide Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2017-07-03 Impact factor: 4.668