PURPOSE: To assesses the utility of a preparatory enema in the interpretation of prostate multiparametric (MP) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Under a waiver from the Institutional Review Board (IRB), 32 patients without bowel preparation and 28 patients who underwent a self-administered enema were imaged consecutively with 3T MP-MRI over 6 months. Two blinded radiologists independently assessed image quality on T2 -weighted (T2 W), trace b 1000 mm(2) /sec echo-planar (EPI) and apparent-diffusion coefficient (ADC) and assessed for motion/blur on T2 W and distortion/blur on EPI and ADC. Radiologists also quantified rectal stool and gas. A third blinded radiologist generated contrast curves from dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) data at six locations and measured the number of corrupted data points, defined as >10% aberrant signal intensity change. Subjective scores were compared using Wilcoxon sign rank test. Rectal contents were correlated to artifact using Spearman correlation. Contrast curves were evaluated with independent t-tests. RESULTS: There was no difference in image quality on T2 W (P = 0.66-0.74), EPI (P = 0.13-0.36) or ADC (P = 0.49-0.59). There was less rectal stool in the enema group (P = 0.004) and amount of stool correlated with motion artifact on T2 W (r = 0.23, P = 0.02); however, there was no difference in motion artifact between groups (P = 0.47-0.94). Only a minority of patients in the non-enema group had moderate or large amounts of stool (16%) and none of these patients had severe or extensive artifact on T2 . There was less rectal gas in the enema group (P = 0.002); however, amount of gas did not correlate with distortion artifact on EPI or ADC (P = 0.17-0.41) and there was no difference in blur (P = 0.41-0.91) or distortion (P = 0.31-0.99) on EPI or ADC between groups. There was no difference in corrupted data points on DCE (P = 0.46). CONCLUSION: In this study the use of a preparatory enema did not improve image quality or reduce artifact in prostate MP-MRI.
PURPOSE: To assesses the utility of a preparatory enema in the interpretation of prostate multiparametric (MP) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Under a waiver from the Institutional Review Board (IRB), 32 patients without bowel preparation and 28 patients who underwent a self-administered enema were imaged consecutively with 3T MP-MRI over 6 months. Two blinded radiologists independently assessed image quality on T2 -weighted (T2 W), trace b 1000 mm(2) /sec echo-planar (EPI) and apparent-diffusion coefficient (ADC) and assessed for motion/blur on T2 W and distortion/blur on EPI and ADC. Radiologists also quantified rectal stool and gas. A third blinded radiologist generated contrast curves from dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) data at six locations and measured the number of corrupted data points, defined as >10% aberrant signal intensity change. Subjective scores were compared using Wilcoxon sign rank test. Rectal contents were correlated to artifact using Spearman correlation. Contrast curves were evaluated with independent t-tests. RESULTS: There was no difference in image quality on T2 W (P = 0.66-0.74), EPI (P = 0.13-0.36) or ADC (P = 0.49-0.59). There was less rectal stool in the enema group (P = 0.004) and amount of stool correlated with motion artifact on T2 W (r = 0.23, P = 0.02); however, there was no difference in motion artifact between groups (P = 0.47-0.94). Only a minority of patients in the non-enema group had moderate or large amounts of stool (16%) and none of these patients had severe or extensive artifact on T2 . There was less rectal gas in the enema group (P = 0.002); however, amount of gas did not correlate with distortion artifact on EPI or ADC (P = 0.17-0.41) and there was no difference in blur (P = 0.41-0.91) or distortion (P = 0.31-0.99) on EPI or ADC between groups. There was no difference in corrupted data points on DCE (P = 0.46). CONCLUSION: In this study the use of a preparatory enema did not improve image quality or reduce artifact in prostate MP-MRI.
Authors: Hyeyoung Oh; Eli D Ehrenpreis; Frank F Tu; Katlyn E Dillane; Ellen F Garrison; Nondas Leloudas; Pottumarthi V Prasad; Kevin M Hellman Journal: Front Pain Res (Lausanne) Date: 2022-05-11
Authors: Cynthia Schmidt; Andreas M Hötker; Urs J Muehlematter; Irene A Burger; Olivio F Donati; Borna K Barth Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2021-03-26
Authors: Regina G H Beets-Tan; Doenja M J Lambregts; Monique Maas; Shandra Bipat; Brunella Barbaro; Luís Curvo-Semedo; Helen M Fenlon; Marc J Gollub; Sofia Gourtsoyianni; Steve Halligan; Christine Hoeffel; Seung Ho Kim; Andrea Laghi; Andrea Maier; Søren R Rafaelsen; Jaap Stoker; Stuart A Taylor; Michael R Torkzad; Lennart Blomqvist Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2017-10-17 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Mehmet Coskun; Sherif Mehralivand; Joanna H Shih; Maria J Merino; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto; Tristan Barrett; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2020-12
Authors: Vetri Sudar Jayaprakasam; Sidra Javed-Tayyab; Natalie Gangai; Junting Zheng; Marinela Capanu; David D B Bates; James L Fuqua; Viktoriya Paroder; Jennifer Golia-Pernicka; Marc J Gollub; Iva Petkovska Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2020-09-14