Literature DB >> 29103977

Conventional vs. reduced field of view diffusion weighted imaging of the prostate: Comparison of image quality, correlation with histology, and inter-reader agreement.

Brent A Warndahl1, Eric A Borisch1, Akira Kawashima2, Stephen J Riederer1, Adam T Froemming3.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To evaluate if Field of view Optimized and Constrained Undistorted Single shot (FOCUS) (GE Healthcare, Waukesha, WI) diffusion weighted images (DWI) provide more reliable imaging than conventional DWI, with non-inferior quantitative apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) results.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: IRB approval was obtained for this study of 43 patients (44 exams, one patient with two visits) that underwent multiparametric prostate MRI with two DWI sequences and subsequent radical prostatectomy with histology as the gold standard. Randomized DWI sequence images were graded independently by two blinded experienced prostate MRI radiologists with a period of memory extinction between the two separate reading sessions. Blinded images were also reviewed head to head in a later session for direct comparison. Multiple parameters were measured from a region of interest in a dominant lesion as well as two control areas. Patient characteristics were collected by chart review.
RESULTS: There was good correlation between the mean ADC value for lesions obtained by conventional and FOCUS DWI (ρ=0.85), with no trend toward any systematic difference, and equivalent correlation between ADC measurements and Gleason score. Agreement between the two readers was significantly higher for lesion ROI analysis with the FOCUS DWI derived ADC values (CCC 0.839) compared with the conventional ADC values (CCC 0.618; difference 0.221, 95% CI 0.01-0.46). FOCUS showed significantly better image quality scores (separate review: mean 2.17±0.6, p<0.001) compared to the conventional sequence (mean 2.65±0.6, p<0.001). In 13 cases the image quality was improved from grade of 3+ with conventional DWI to <3 with FOCUS DWI, a clinically meaningful improvement. Head-to-head blinded review found 61 ratings showed strong to slight preference for FOCUS, 13 no preference, and 14 slight preference for the conventional sequence. There was also a strong and equivalent correlation between both sequences and PIRADS version 2 grading (ρ=-0.56 and -0.58 for FOCUS and conventional, respectively, p<0.001 for both).
CONCLUSION: FOCUS DWI of the prostate shows significant improvement in inter-reader agreement and image quality. As opposed to previous conflicting smaller studies, we found equivalent ADC metrics compared with the conventional DWI sequence, and preserved correlation with Gleason score. In 52% of patients the improved image quality with FOCUS had the potential to salvage exams with otherwise limited to non-diagnostic DWI.
Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Apparent diffusion coefficient; Diffusion weighted imaging; MRI; Prostate

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29103977     DOI: 10.1016/j.mri.2017.10.011

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Magn Reson Imaging        ISSN: 0730-725X            Impact factor:   2.546


  7 in total

Review 1.  Diffusion and quantification of diffusion of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Yoshiko Ueno; Tsutomu Tamada; Keitaro Sofue; Takamichi Murakami
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2021-09-19       Impact factor: 3.039

2.  Reduced field-of-view and multi-shot DWI acquisition techniques: Prospective evaluation of image quality and distortion reduction in prostate cancer imaging.

Authors:  Edward M Lawrence; Yuxin Zhang; Jitka Starekova; Zihan Wang; Ali Pirasteh; Shane A Wells; Diego Hernando
Journal:  Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2022-08-06       Impact factor: 3.130

3.  Accelerated Segmented Diffusion-Weighted Prostate Imaging for Higher Resolution, Higher Geometric Fidelity, and Multi-b Perfusion Estimation.

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

4.  Comparison of reduced field-of-view DWI and full field-of view DWI for the differentiation between non-muscle invasive bladder cancer and muscle invasive bladder cancer using VI-RADS.

Authors:  Hiroshi Juri; Akira Higashiyama; Kiyohito Yamamoto; Yoshifumi Narumi; Haruhito Azuma; Kazuhiro Yamamoto; Keigo Osuga
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-07-20       Impact factor: 3.752

5.  Combining SENSE and reduced field-of-view for high-resolution diffusion weighted magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  Jisu Hu; Ming Li; Yakang Dai; Chen Geng; Baotong Tong; Zhiyong Zhou; Xue Liang; Wen Yang; Bing Zhang
Journal:  Biomed Eng Online       Date:  2018-06-15       Impact factor: 2.819

6.  How to improve image quality of DWI of the prostate-enema or catheter preparation?

Authors:  Carolin Reischauer; Timmy Cancelli; Sonaz Malekzadeh; Johannes M Froehlich; Harriet C Thoeny
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2021-03-23       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 7.  Prostate MRI quality: a critical review of the last 5 years and the role of the PI-QUAL score.

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

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.