OBJECTIVE: Diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) is an important technique for the localization of prostate cancer, and its response assessment during treatment with radiotherapy (RT). However, it has known limitations in terms of distortions and artefacts using standard acquisition techniques. This study evaluates two alternative methods that offer the promise of improved image quality and the potential for more reliable and consistent diffusion data. METHODS: Three DWI techniques were investigated; single-shot echoplanar imaging (EPI), EPI combined with reduced volume excitation (ZOOMit; Siemens Healthcare, Erlangen, Germany) and read-out segmentation with navigator-echo correction (RESOLVE; Siemens Healthcare). Daily measurements of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) value were made in a quality assurance phantom to assess the repeatability of each sequence. In order to evaluate the geometric integrity of these sequences, ten normal volunteers were scanned, and the prostate was contoured to compare its similarity with T2 weighted images. RESULTS: Phantom ADC values were significantly higher using the standard EPI sequence than those of the other two sequences. Differences were also observed between sequences in terms of repeatability, with RESOLVE and EPI performing better than ZOOMit. Overall, the RESOLVE sequence provided the best agreement for the in vivo data with smaller differences in volume and higher contour similarity than T2 weighted imaging. CONCLUSION: Important differences have been observed between each of the three techniques investigated with RESOLVE performing the best overall. We have adopted this sequence for routine RT simulation of prostate patients at Liverpool Cancer Therapy Centre. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This work will be of interest to the increasing number of centres wanting to incorporate quantitative DWI in a clinical setting.
OBJECTIVE: Diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) is an important technique for the localization of prostate cancer, and its response assessment during treatment with radiotherapy (RT). However, it has known limitations in terms of distortions and artefacts using standard acquisition techniques. This study evaluates two alternative methods that offer the promise of improved image quality and the potential for more reliable and consistent diffusion data. METHODS: Three DWI techniques were investigated; single-shot echoplanar imaging (EPI), EPI combined with reduced volume excitation (ZOOMit; Siemens Healthcare, Erlangen, Germany) and read-out segmentation with navigator-echo correction (RESOLVE; Siemens Healthcare). Daily measurements of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) value were made in a quality assurance phantom to assess the repeatability of each sequence. In order to evaluate the geometric integrity of these sequences, ten normal volunteers were scanned, and the prostate was contoured to compare its similarity with T2 weighted images. RESULTS: Phantom ADC values were significantly higher using the standard EPI sequence than those of the other two sequences. Differences were also observed between sequences in terms of repeatability, with RESOLVE and EPI performing better than ZOOMit. Overall, the RESOLVE sequence provided the best agreement for the in vivo data with smaller differences in volume and higher contour similarity than T2 weighted imaging. CONCLUSION: Important differences have been observed between each of the three techniques investigated with RESOLVE performing the best overall. We have adopted this sequence for routine RT simulation of prostate patients at Liverpool Cancer Therapy Centre. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This work will be of interest to the increasing number of centres wanting to incorporate quantitative DWI in a clinical setting.
Authors: Mark A Griswold; Peter M Jakob; Robin M Heidemann; Mathias Nittka; Vladimir Jellus; Jianmin Wang; Berthold Kiefer; Axel Haase Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2002-06 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Guanqiao Jin; Dan Ke Su; Ning Bin Luo; Li Dong Liu; Xuna Zhu; Xiang Yang Huang Journal: J Comput Assist Tomogr Date: 2013 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 1.826
Authors: Geert M Villeirs; Koen Van Vaerenbergh; Luc Vakaet; Samuel Bral; Filip Claus; Wilfried J De Neve; Koenraad L Verstraete; Gert O De Meerleer Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Wolfgang Bogner; Katja Pinker-Domenig; Hubert Bickel; Marek Chmelik; Michael Weber; Thomas H Helbich; Siegfried Trattnig; Stephan Gruber Journal: Radiology Date: 2012-04 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Kristen W Yeom; Samantha J Holdsworth; Anh T Van; Michael Iv; Stefan Skare; Robert M Lober; Roland Bammer Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2013-05 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Sofie Isebaert; Laura Van den Bergh; Karin Haustermans; Steven Joniau; Evelyne Lerut; Liesbeth De Wever; Frederik De Keyzer; Tom Budiharto; Pieter Slagmolen; Hendrik Van Poppel; Raymond Oyen Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2012-11-21 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: P S Tofts; D Lloyd; C A Clark; G J Barker; G J Parker; P McConville; C Baldock; J M Pope Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2000-03 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Hui Xue; Latha Srinivasan; Shuzhou Jiang; Mary Rutherford; A David Edwards; Daniel Rueckert; Joseph V Hajnal Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2007-08-07 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Myo Min; Mark T Lee; Peter Lin; Lois Holloway; Dj Wijesekera; Dinesh Gooneratne; Robba Rai; Wei Xuan; Allan Fowler; Dion Forstner; Gary Liney Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2015-12-09 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Trang Thanh Pham; Gary Liney; Karen Wong; Robba Rai; Mark Lee; Daniel Moses; Christopher Henderson; Michael Lin; Joo-Shik Shin; Michael Bernard Barton Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2017-07-04 Impact factor: 4.430