PURPOSE: Diffusion imaging in the prostate is susceptible to distortion from B0 inhomogeneity. Distortion correction in prostate imaging is not routinely performed, resulting in diffusion images without accurate localization of tumors. We performed and evaluated distortion correction for diffusion imaging in the prostate. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 28 patients underwent pre-operative MRI (T2, Gadolinium perfusion, diffusion at b=800 s/mm(2)). The restriction spectrum protocol parameters included b-values of 0, 800, 1500, and 4000 s/mm(2) in 30 directions for each nonzero b-value. To correct for distortion, forward and reverse trajectories were collected at b=0 s/mm(2). Distortion maps were generated to reflect the offset of the collected data versus the corrected data. Whole-mount histology was available for correlation. RESULTS: Across the 27 patients evaluated (excluding one patient due to data collection error), the average root mean square distortion distance of the prostate was 3.1 mm (standard deviation, 2.2mm; and maximum distortion, 12 mm). CONCLUSION: Improved localization of prostate cancer by MRI will allow better surgical planning, targeted biopsies and image-guided treatment therapies. Distortion distances of up to 12 mm due to standard diffusion imaging may grossly misdirect treatment decisions. Distortion correction for diffusion imaging in the prostate improves tumor localization.
PURPOSE: Diffusion imaging in the prostate is susceptible to distortion from B0 inhomogeneity. Distortion correction in prostate imaging is not routinely performed, resulting in diffusion images without accurate localization of tumors. We performed and evaluated distortion correction for diffusion imaging in the prostate. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 28 patients underwent pre-operative MRI (T2, Gadolinium perfusion, diffusion at b=800 s/mm(2)). The restriction spectrum protocol parameters included b-values of 0, 800, 1500, and 4000 s/mm(2) in 30 directions for each nonzero b-value. To correct for distortion, forward and reverse trajectories were collected at b=0 s/mm(2). Distortion maps were generated to reflect the offset of the collected data versus the corrected data. Whole-mount histology was available for correlation. RESULTS: Across the 27 patients evaluated (excluding one patient due to data collection error), the average root mean square distortion distance of the prostate was 3.1 mm (standard deviation, 2.2mm; and maximum distortion, 12 mm). CONCLUSION: Improved localization of prostate cancer by MRI will allow better surgical planning, targeted biopsies and image-guided treatment therapies. Distortion distances of up to 12 mm due to standard diffusion imaging may grossly misdirect treatment decisions. Distortion correction for diffusion imaging in the prostate improves tumor localization.
Authors: Lambros Stamatakis; M Minhaj Siddiqui; Jeffrey W Nix; Jennifer Logan; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Annerleim Walton-Diaz; Anthony N Hoang; Srinivas Vourganti; Hong Truong; Brian Shuch; Howard L Parnes; Baris Turkbey; Peter L Choyke; Bradford J Wood; Richard M Simon; Peter A Pinto Journal: Cancer Date: 2013-07-02 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Soroush Rais-Bahrami; M Minhaj Siddiqui; Baris Turkbey; Lambros Stamatakis; Jennifer Logan; Anthony N Hoang; Annerleim Walton-Diaz; Srinivas Vourganti; Hong Truong; Jochen Kruecker; Maria J Merino; Bradford J Wood; Peter L Choyke; Peter A Pinto Journal: J Urol Date: 2013-05-29 Impact factor: 7.450
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: Francisco Donato; Daniel N Costa; Qing Yuan; Neil M Rofsky; Robert E Lenkinski; Ivan Pedrosa Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2014-04-04 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: M Abd-Alazeez; A Kirkham; H U Ahmed; M Arya; E Anastasiadis; S C Charman; A Freeman; M Emberton Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2013-10-15 Impact factor: 5.554
Authors: Mohamed Abd-Alazeez; Hashim U Ahmed; Manit Arya; Susan C Charman; Eleni Anastasiadis; Alex Freeman; Mark Emberton; Alex Kirkham Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2013-09-18 Impact factor: 3.498
Authors: Kevin C McCammack; Natalie M Schenker-Ahmed; Nathan S White; Shaun R Best; Robert M Marks; Jared Heimbigner; Christopher J Kane; J Kellogg Parsons; Joshua M Kuperman; Hauke Bartsch; Rahul S Desikan; Rebecca A Rakow-Penner; Michael A Liss; Daniel J A Margolis; Steven S Raman; Ahmed Shabaik; Anders M Dale; David S Karow Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2016-05
Authors: K C McCammack; C J Kane; J K Parsons; N S White; N M Schenker-Ahmed; J M Kuperman; H Bartsch; R S Desikan; R A Rakow-Penner; D Adams; M A Liss; R F Mattrey; W G Bradley; D J A Margolis; S S Raman; A Shabaik; A M Dale; D S Karow Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2016-01-12 Impact factor: 5.554
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: Ryan L Brunsing; Natalie M Schenker-Ahmed; Nathan S White; J Kellogg Parsons; Christopher Kane; Joshua Kuperman; Hauke Bartsch; Andrew Karim Kader; Rebecca Rakow-Penner; Tyler M Seibert; Daniel Margolis; Steven S Raman; Carrie R McDonald; Nikdokht Farid; Santosh Kesari; Donna Hansel; Ahmed Shabaik; Anders M Dale; David S Karow Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2016-08-16 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Leonardino A Digma; Christine H Feng; Christopher C Conlin; Ana E Rodríguez-Soto; Allison Y Zhong; Troy S Hussain; Asona J Lui; Kanha Batra; Aaron B Simon; Roshan Karunamuni; Joshua Kuperman; Rebecca Rakow-Penner; Michael E Hahn; Anders M Dale; Tyler M Seibert Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2022-01-07 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Jeffrey Mark Treiber; Nathan S White; Tyler Christian Steed; Hauke Bartsch; Dominic Holland; Nikdokht Farid; Carrie R McDonald; Bob S Carter; Anders Martin Dale; Clark C Chen Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-03-30 Impact factor: 3.240