Ivan Jambor1, Marko Pesola1, Pekka Taimen2, Harri Merisaari3,4, Peter J Boström5, Heikki Minn6, Timo Liimatainen7, Hannu J Aronen1,8. 1. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, University of Turku, Turku, Finland. 2. Department of Pathology, University of Turku and Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland. 3. Department of Information Technology, University of Turku, Turku, Finland. 4. Turku PET Centre, University of Turku, Turku, Finland. 5. Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland. 6. Department of Oncology and Radiotherapy, Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland. 7. Department of Biotechnology and Molecular Medicine, A.I. Virtanen Institute for Molecular Sciences, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland. 8. Medical Imaging Centre of Southwest Finland, Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate relaxation along a fictitious field (RAFF) and continuous wave (cw) T1ρ imaging of prostate cancer (PCa) in the terms of repeatability, PCa detection, and characterization. METHODS: Thirty-six patients (PSA 11.6 ± 7.6 ng/mL, mean ± standard deviation) with histologically confirmed PCa underwent two repeated 3T MR examinations using surface array coils before prostatectomy. Relaxation along fictitious field, cw T1ρ, and T2 relaxation times (TRAFF, T1ρcw, T2) were measured and averaged over regions of interest placed in PCa, normal peripheral zone (PZ), and normal central gland (CG) positioned using whole-mount prostatectomy sections and anatomical T2-weighted images. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis with area under the curve (AUC) was calculated to distinguish PCa from PZ/CG and PCa with Gleason score (GS) of 3+3 from GS of 3+4/≥ 3+4. RESULTS: TRAFF and T1ρcw relaxation times were repeatable with coefficients of repeatability as a percentage of median value in the range of 7.8-23.2%. AUC (mean, 95% confidence interval) in the differentiation of PCa with GS of 3+3 from PCa with CS of ≥ 3+4 were 0.88 (0.72-0.99), 0.69 (0.46-0.90), and 0.68 (0.45-0.88), for TRAFF, T1ρcw, and T2, respectively. CONCLUSION: In quantitative region of interest based analysis, TRAFF outperformed T1ρcw and T2 in PCa detection and characterization.
PURPOSE: To investigate relaxation along a fictitious field (RAFF) and continuous wave (cw) T1ρ imaging of prostate cancer (PCa) in the terms of repeatability, PCa detection, and characterization. METHODS: Thirty-six patients (PSA 11.6 ± 7.6 ng/mL, mean ± standard deviation) with histologically confirmed PCa underwent two repeated 3T MR examinations using surface array coils before prostatectomy. Relaxation along fictitious field, cw T1ρ, and T2 relaxation times (TRAFF, T1ρcw, T2) were measured and averaged over regions of interest placed in PCa, normal peripheral zone (PZ), and normal central gland (CG) positioned using whole-mount prostatectomy sections and anatomical T2-weighted images. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis with area under the curve (AUC) was calculated to distinguish PCa from PZ/CG and PCa with Gleason score (GS) of 3+3 from GS of 3+4/≥ 3+4. RESULTS: TRAFF and T1ρcw relaxation times were repeatable with coefficients of repeatability as a percentage of median value in the range of 7.8-23.2%. AUC (mean, 95% confidence interval) in the differentiation of PCa with GS of 3+3 from PCa with CS of ≥ 3+4 were 0.88 (0.72-0.99), 0.69 (0.46-0.90), and 0.68 (0.45-0.88), for TRAFF, T1ρcw, and T2, respectively. CONCLUSION: In quantitative region of interest based analysis, TRAFF outperformed T1ρcw and T2 in PCa detection and characterization.
Authors: Ivan Jambor; Anna Kuisma; Esa Kähkönen; Jukka Kemppainen; Harri Merisaari; Olli Eskola; Jarmo Teuho; Ileana Montoya Perez; Marko Pesola; Hannu J Aronen; Peter J Boström; Pekka Taimen; Heikki Minn Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2017-11-16 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Jussi Toivonen; Ileana Montoya Perez; Parisa Movahedi; Harri Merisaari; Marko Pesola; Pekka Taimen; Peter J Boström; Jonne Pohjankukka; Aida Kiviniemi; Tapio Pahikkala; Hannu J Aronen; Ivan Jambor Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-07-08 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Shoshana B Ginsburg; Ahmad Algohary; Shivani Pahwa; Vikas Gulani; Lee Ponsky; Hannu J Aronen; Peter J Boström; Maret Böhm; Anne-Maree Haynes; Phillip Brenner; Warick Delprado; James Thompson; Marley Pulbrock; Pekka Taimen; Robert Villani; Phillip Stricker; Ardeshir R Rastinehad; Ivan Jambor; Anant Madabhushi Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2016-12-19 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Seyed Amir Mirmojarabian; Eveliina Lammentausta; Esa Liukkonen; Lauri Ahvenjärvi; Juhani Junttila; Miika T Nieminen; Timo Liimatainen Journal: Int J Biomed Imaging Date: 2022-06-23
Authors: Harri Merisaari; Pekka Taimen; Rakesh Shiradkar; Otto Ettala; Marko Pesola; Jani Saunavaara; Peter J Boström; Anant Madabhushi; Hannu J Aronen; Ivan Jambor Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2019-11-08 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Ernst S Kooreman; Max Tanaka; Leon C Ter Beek; Femke P Peters; Corrie A M Marijnen; Uulke A van der Heide; Petra J van Houdt Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-04-02 Impact factor: 4.241
Authors: Shoshana B Ginsburg; Pekka Taimen; Harri Merisaari; Paula Vainio; Peter J Boström; Hannu J Aronen; Ivan Jambor; Anant Madabhushi Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2016-06-10 Impact factor: 5.119