Ahmed Larbi1, Patrick Omoumi2, Vassiliki Pasoglou1, Nicolas Michoux1, Perrine Triqueneaux1, Bertrand Tombal3, Catherine Cyteval4, Frédéric E Lecouvet5. 1. Department of Radiology, Institut de Recherche Expérimentale et Clinique (IREC), Cliniques Universitaires Saint Luc, Université catholique de Louvain (UCLouvain), Brussels, Belgium. 2. Department of Radiology, CHUV, Lausanne, Switzerland. 3. Division of Urology, IREC, Cliniques Universitaires Saint Luc, UCLouvain, Brussels, Belgium. 4. Department of Radiology, Faculté de médecine de Montpellier/Nîmes, Hôpital Lapeyronie, Montpellier, France. 5. Department of Radiology, Institut de Recherche Expérimentale et Clinique (IREC), Cliniques Universitaires Saint Luc, Université catholique de Louvain (UCLouvain), Brussels, Belgium. frederic.lecouvet@uclouvain.be.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of whole-body T1, short tau inversion recovery (STIR), high b-value diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), and sequence combinations to detect bone involvement in prostate cancer (PCa) and multiple myeloma (MM) patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We included 50 consecutive patients with PCa at high risk for metastasis and 47 consecutive patients with a histologically confirmed diagnosis of MM who received whole-body MRI at two institutions from January to December 2015. Coronal T1, STIR, and reconstructed coronal high b-values DWI were obtained for all patients. Two musculoskeletal radiologists read individual sequences, pairs of sequences (T1-DWI, T1-STIR, and STIR-DWI), and all combined (T1-STIR-DWI) to detect bone involvement. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was used to assess diagnostic performance according to a "best valuable comparator" combining baseline and 6-month imaging and clinical and biological data. Interobserver agreement was calculated. RESULTS: Interobserver agreement for individual and combined MRI sequences was very good in the PCa group and ranged from good to very good in the MM group (0.76-1.00). In PCa patients, T1-DWI, T1-STIR, and T1-STIR-DWI showed the highest performance (sensitivity = 100% [95% CI = 90.5-100%], specificity = 100% [75.3-100%]). In MM patients, the highest performance was achieved by T1-STIR-DWI (sensitivity = 100% [88.4-100%], specificity = 94.1% [71.3-100%]). T1-STIR-DWI significantly outperformed all sequences (p < 0.05) except T1-DWI (p = 0.49). CONCLUSION: In PCa patients, a combination of either T1-DWI or T1-STIR sequences is not inferior to a combination of three sequences to detect bone metastases. In MM, T1-STIR-DWI and T1-DWI had the highest diagnostic performance for detecting bone involvement. KEY POINTS: • The sequences used in Whole Body MRI studies to detect bone involvement in prostate cancer and myeloma were evaluated. • In prostate cancer, any pairwise combinations of T1, STIR, and DWI have high diagnostic value. • In myeloma, the combinations T1-STIR-DWI or T1-DWI sequences should be used.
PURPOSE: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of whole-body T1, short tau inversion recovery (STIR), high b-value diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), and sequence combinations to detect bone involvement in prostate cancer (PCa) and multiple myeloma (MM) patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We included 50 consecutive patients with PCa at high risk for metastasis and 47 consecutive patients with a histologically confirmed diagnosis of MM who received whole-body MRI at two institutions from January to December 2015. Coronal T1, STIR, and reconstructed coronal high b-values DWI were obtained for all patients. Two musculoskeletal radiologists read individual sequences, pairs of sequences (T1-DWI, T1-STIR, and STIR-DWI), and all combined (T1-STIR-DWI) to detect bone involvement. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was used to assess diagnostic performance according to a "best valuable comparator" combining baseline and 6-month imaging and clinical and biological data. Interobserver agreement was calculated. RESULTS: Interobserver agreement for individual and combined MRI sequences was very good in the PCa group and ranged from good to very good in the MM group (0.76-1.00). In PCa patients, T1-DWI, T1-STIR, and T1-STIR-DWI showed the highest performance (sensitivity = 100% [95% CI = 90.5-100%], specificity = 100% [75.3-100%]). In MM patients, the highest performance was achieved by T1-STIR-DWI (sensitivity = 100% [88.4-100%], specificity = 94.1% [71.3-100%]). T1-STIR-DWI significantly outperformed all sequences (p < 0.05) except T1-DWI (p = 0.49). CONCLUSION: In PCa patients, a combination of either T1-DWI or T1-STIR sequences is not inferior to a combination of three sequences to detect bone metastases. In MM, T1-STIR-DWI and T1-DWI had the highest diagnostic performance for detecting bone involvement. KEY POINTS: • The sequences used in Whole Body MRI studies to detect bone involvement in prostate cancer and myeloma were evaluated. • In prostate cancer, any pairwise combinations of T1, STIR, and DWI have high diagnostic value. • In myeloma, the combinations T1-STIR-DWI or T1-DWI sequences should be used.
Entities:
Keywords:
Bone marrow diseases; Magnetic resonance imaging; Multiple myeloma; Prostate cancer; Whole body imaging
Authors: H E Daldrup-Link; C Franzius; T M Link; D Laukamp; J Sciuk; H Jürgens; O Schober; E J Rummeny Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2001-07 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: R Walker; P Kessar; R Blanchard; M Dimasi; K Harper; V DeCarvalho; E K Yucel; L Patriquin; S Eustace Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2000-04 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Thomas C Lauenstein; Susanne C Goehde; Christoph U Herborn; Matthias Goyen; Carsten Oberhoff; Jörg F Debatin; Stefan G Ruehm; Jörg Barkhausen Journal: Radiology Date: 2004-08-18 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: L A Moulopoulos; D G Varma; M A Dimopoulos; N E Leeds; E E Kim; D A Johnston; R Alexanian; H I Libshitz Journal: Radiology Date: 1992-12 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Nicolas F Michoux; Jakub W Ceranka; Jef Vandemeulebroucke; Frank Peeters; Pierre Lu; Julie Absil; Perrine Triqueneaux; Yan Liu; Laurence Collette; Inneke Willekens; Carola Brussaard; Olivier Debeir; Stephan Hahn; Hubert Raeymaekers; Johan de Mey; Thierry Metens; Frédéric E Lecouvet Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2021-01-06 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Erik Rud; Daniyal Noor; Kristina Flor Galtung; Fredrik Ottosson; Maciej Jacewicz; Eduard Baco; Peter Mæhre Lauritzen Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2022-08-08 Impact factor: 7.034
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: Anthony Turpin; Edwina Girard; Clio Baillet; David Pasquier; Jonathan Olivier; Arnauld Villers; Philippe Puech; Nicolas Penel Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2020-01-31 Impact factor: 6.244