Aritrick Chatterjee1, Ajit Devaraj2, Melvy Mathew1, Teodora Szasz3, Tatjana Antic4, Gregory S Karczmar1, Aytekin Oto5. 1. Department of Radiology, University of Chicago, 5841 South Maryland Avenue, Chicago, IL 60637. 2. Philips Research North America, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 3. Research Computing Center, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois. 4. Department of Pathology, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois. 5. Department of Radiology, University of Chicago, 5841 South Maryland Avenue, Chicago, IL 60637. Electronic address: aoto@radiology.bsd.uchicago.edu.
Abstract
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: This study compares the performance of T2 maps in the detection of prostate cancer (PCa) in comparison to T2-weighted (T2W) magnetic resonance images. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The prospective study was institutional review board approved. Consenting patients (n = 45) with histologic confirmed PCa underwent preoperative 3-T magnetic resonance imaging with or without endorectal coil. Two radiologists, working independently, marked regions of interests (ROIs) on PCa lesions separately on T2W images and T2 maps. Each ROI was assigned a score of 1-5 based on the confidence in accurately detecting cancer, with 5 being the highest confidence. Subsequently, the histologically confirmed PCa lesions (n = 112) on whole-mount sections were matched with ROIs to calculate sensitivity, positive predictive value (PPV), and radiologist confidence score. Quantitative T2 values of PCa and benign tissue ROIs were measured. RESULTS: Sensitivity and confidence score for PCa detection were similar for T2W images (51%, 4.5 ± 0.8) and T2 maps (52%, 4.5 ± 0.6). However, PPV was significantly higher (P = .001) for T2 maps (88%) compared to T2W (72%) images. The use of endorectal coils nominally improved sensitivity (T2W: 55 vs 47%, T2 map: 54% vs 48%) compared to the use of no endorectal coils, but not the PPV and the confidence score. Quantitative T2 values for PCa (105 ± 28 milliseconds) were significantly (P = 9.3 × 10-14) lower than benign peripheral zone tissue (211 ± 71 milliseconds), with moderate significant correlation with Gleason score (ρ = -0.284). CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that review of T2 maps by radiologists has similar sensitivity but higher PPV compared to T2W images. Additional quantitative information obtained from T2 maps is helpful in differentiating cancer from normal prostate tissue and determining its aggressiveness.
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: This study compares the performance of T2 maps in the detection of prostate cancer (PCa) in comparison to T2-weighted (T2W) magnetic resonance images. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The prospective study was institutional review board approved. Consenting patients (n = 45) with histologic confirmed PCa underwent preoperative 3-T magnetic resonance imaging with or without endorectal coil. Two radiologists, working independently, marked regions of interests (ROIs) on PCa lesions separately on T2W images and T2 maps. Each ROI was assigned a score of 1-5 based on the confidence in accurately detecting cancer, with 5 being the highest confidence. Subsequently, the histologically confirmed PCa lesions (n = 112) on whole-mount sections were matched with ROIs to calculate sensitivity, positive predictive value (PPV), and radiologist confidence score. Quantitative T2 values of PCa and benign tissue ROIs were measured. RESULTS: Sensitivity and confidence score for PCa detection were similar for T2W images (51%, 4.5 ± 0.8) and T2 maps (52%, 4.5 ± 0.6). However, PPV was significantly higher (P = .001) for T2 maps (88%) compared to T2W (72%) images. The use of endorectal coils nominally improved sensitivity (T2W: 55 vs 47%, T2 map: 54% vs 48%) compared to the use of no endorectal coils, but not the PPV and the confidence score. Quantitative T2 values for PCa (105 ± 28 milliseconds) were significantly (P = 9.3 × 10-14) lower than benign peripheral zone tissue (211 ± 71 milliseconds), with moderate significant correlation with Gleason score (ρ = -0.284). CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that review of T2 maps by radiologists has similar sensitivity but higher PPV compared to T2W images. Additional quantitative information obtained from T2 maps is helpful in differentiating cancer from normal prostate tissue and determining its aggressiveness.
Authors: Matthew D Greer; Anna M Brown; Joanna H Shih; Ronald M Summers; Jamie Marko; Yan Mee Law; Sandeep Sankineni; Arvin K George; Maria J Merino; Peter A Pinto; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2016-07-08 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: A Hoang Dinh; R Souchon; C Melodelima; F Bratan; F Mège-Lechevallier; M Colombel; O Rouvière Journal: Diagn Interv Imaging Date: 2014-12-23 Impact factor: 4.026
Authors: Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Fang-Ming Deng; Sooah Kim; Ruth P Lim; Nicole Hindman; Thais C Mussi; Bradley Spieler; Jason Oaks; James S Babb; Jonathan Melamed; Samir S Taneja Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2012-10 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Hashim U Ahmed; Ahmed El-Shater Bosaily; Louise C Brown; Rhian Gabe; Richard Kaplan; Mahesh K Parmar; Yolanda Collaco-Moraes; Katie Ward; Richard G Hindley; Alex Freeman; Alex P Kirkham; Robert Oldroyd; Chris Parker; Mark Emberton Journal: Lancet Date: 2017-01-20 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Josephin Gawlitza; Martin Reiss-Zimmermann; Gregor Thörmer; Alexander Schaudinn; Nicolas Linder; Nikita Garnov; Lars-Christian Horn; Do Hoang Minh; Roman Ganzer; Jens-Uwe Stolzenburg; Thomas Kahn; Michael Moche; Harald Busse Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2017-02-01 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Tobias Hepp; Laura Kalmbach; Manuel Kolb; Petros Martirosian; Tom Hilbert; Wolfgang M Thaiss; Mike Notohamiprodjo; Jens Bedke; Konstantin Nikolaou; Arnulf Stenzl; Stephan Kruck; Sascha Kaufmann Journal: World J Urol Date: 2022-03-31 Impact factor: 3.661
Authors: Lisa C Adams; Keno K Bressem; Phillipp Jurmeister; Ute L Fahlenkamp; Bernhard Ralla; Guenther Engel; Bernd Hamm; Jonas Busch; Marcus R Makowski Journal: Cancer Imaging Date: 2019-06-07 Impact factor: 3.909