PURPOSE: To evaluate revised PROPELLER (RevPROP) for T2-weighted imaging (T2WI) of the prostate as a substitute for turbo spin echo (TSE). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three-Tesla MR images of 50 patients with 55 cancer-suspicious lesions were prospectively evaluated. Findings were correlated with histopathology after MRI-guided biopsy. T2 RevPROP, T2 TSE, diffusion-weighted imaging, dynamic contrast enhancement, and MR-spectroscopy were acquired. RevPROP was compared to TSE concerning PI-RADS scores, lesion size, lesion signal-intensity, lesion contrast, artefacts, and image quality. RESULTS: There were 41 carcinomas in 55 cancer-suspicious lesions. RevPROP detected 41 of 41 carcinomas (100%) and 54 of 55 lesions (98.2%). TSE detected 39 of 41 carcinomas (95.1%) and 51 of 55 lesions (92.7%). RevPROP showed fewer artefacts and higher image quality (each p < 0.001). No differences were observed between single and overall PI-RADS scores based on RevPROP or TSE (p = 0.106 and p = 0.107). Lesion size was not different (p = 0.105). T2-signal intensity of lesions was higher and T2-contrast of lesions was lower on RevPROP (each p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: For prostate cancer detection RevPROP is superior to TSE with respect to motion robustness, image quality and detection rates of lesions. Therefore, RevPROP might be used as a substitute for T2WI. KEY POINTS: • Revised PROPELLER can be used as a substitute for T2-weighted prostate imaging. • Revised PROPELLER detected more carcinomas and more suspicious lesions than TSE. • Revised PROPELLER showed fewer artefacts and better image quality compared to TSE. • There were no significant differences in PI-RADS scores between revised PROPELLER and TSE. • The lower T2-contrast of revised PROPELLER did not impair its diagnostic quality.
PURPOSE: To evaluate revised PROPELLER (RevPROP) for T2-weighted imaging (T2WI) of the prostate as a substitute for turbo spin echo (TSE). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three-Tesla MR images of 50 patients with 55 cancer-suspicious lesions were prospectively evaluated. Findings were correlated with histopathology after MRI-guided biopsy. T2 RevPROP, T2 TSE, diffusion-weighted imaging, dynamic contrast enhancement, and MR-spectroscopy were acquired. RevPROP was compared to TSE concerning PI-RADS scores, lesion size, lesion signal-intensity, lesion contrast, artefacts, and image quality. RESULTS: There were 41 carcinomas in 55 cancer-suspicious lesions. RevPROP detected 41 of 41 carcinomas (100%) and 54 of 55 lesions (98.2%). TSE detected 39 of 41 carcinomas (95.1%) and 51 of 55 lesions (92.7%). RevPROP showed fewer artefacts and higher image quality (each p < 0.001). No differences were observed between single and overall PI-RADS scores based on RevPROP or TSE (p = 0.106 and p = 0.107). Lesion size was not different (p = 0.105). T2-signal intensity of lesions was higher and T2-contrast of lesions was lower on RevPROP (each p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: For prostate cancer detection RevPROP is superior to TSE with respect to motion robustness, image quality and detection rates of lesions. Therefore, RevPROP might be used as a substitute for T2WI. KEY POINTS: • Revised PROPELLER can be used as a substitute for T2-weighted prostate imaging. • Revised PROPELLER detected more carcinomas and more suspicious lesions than TSE. • Revised PROPELLER showed fewer artefacts and better image quality compared to TSE. • There were no significant differences in PI-RADS scores between revised PROPELLER and TSE. • The lower T2-contrast of revised PROPELLER did not impair its diagnostic quality.
Authors: Caroline M A Hoeks; Jelle O Barentsz; Thomas Hambrock; Derya Yakar; Diederik M Somford; Stijn W T P J Heijmink; Tom W J Scheenen; Pieter C Vos; Henkjan Huisman; Inge M van Oort; J Alfred Witjes; Arend Heerschap; Jurgen J Fütterer Journal: Radiology Date: 2011-10 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: E Nyberg; G S Sandhu; J Jesberger; K A Blackham; D P Hsu; M A Griswold; J L Sunshine Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2011-11-17 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Bernd J Wintersperger; Val M Runge; Jonmenjoy Biswas; C Brett Nelson; Alto Stemmer; Alexander B Simonetta; Maximilian F Reiser; L G Naul; Stefan O Schoenberg Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2006-07 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Johannes M Froehlich; Thierry Metens; Bianka Chilla; Nik Hauser; Markus Klarhoefer; Rahel A Kubik-Huch Journal: Insights Imaging Date: 2012-09-26
Authors: Soudabeh Kargar; Eric A Borisch; Adam T Froemming; Roger C Grimm; Akira Kawashima; Bernard F King; Eric G Stinson; Stephen J Riederer Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2020-05-17 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Francesco Giganti; Veeru Kasivisvanathan; Alex Kirkham; Shonit Punwani; Mark Emberton; Caroline M Moore; Clare Allen Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2021-07-08 Impact factor: 3.039