Salma Jendoubi1, Mathilde Wagner2,3, Sarah Montagne1,2, Malek Ezziane2, Julien Mespoulet1, Eva Comperat4,5, Candice Estellat6, Amandine Baptiste6, Raphaele Renard-Penna7,8,9. 1. Department of Radiology, Tenon Academic Hospital, AP-HP, Sorbonne Universités, Paris, France. 2. Department of Radiology, Pitié-Salpétrière Academic Hospital, AP-HP- Charles Foix, Sorbonne Universités, Paris, France. 3. CNRS, INSERM, LIB, Paris, France. 4. Department of Pathology, Hopital Tenon Academic Hospital, AP-HP, Sorbonne Universités, Paris, France. 5. Groupe de recherche clinique-UPMC n°5, Oncotype-Uro, Institut Universitaire de Cancérologie de l'UPMC, Pierre and Marie Curie Medical School, Sorbonne Universités, Paris, France. 6. Department of Biostatistics public health and medical information, Pitié-Salpétrière Academic Hospital, AP-HP, Sorbonne Universités, AP-HP, CIC-P 1421, Paris, France. 7. Department of Radiology, Tenon Academic Hospital, AP-HP, Sorbonne Universités, Paris, France. raphaele.renardpenna@aphp.fr. 8. Department of Radiology, Pitié-Salpétrière Academic Hospital, AP-HP- Charles Foix, Sorbonne Universités, Paris, France. raphaele.renardpenna@aphp.fr. 9. Groupe de recherche clinique-UPMC n°5, Oncotype-Uro, Institut Universitaire de Cancérologie de l'UPMC, Pierre and Marie Curie Medical School, Sorbonne Universités, Paris, France. raphaele.renardpenna@aphp.fr.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare computed high b-value diffusion-weighted images (c-DWI) derived from low b-value DWI images and acquired high b-value DWI (a-DWI), in overall image quality and prostate cancer detection rate. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 124 consecutive men with suspected prostate cancer (PCa) underwent diagnosis prostate MRI on a 3.0 T MR system using a 32-channel phased-array torso coil. Among them, 63 underwent prostate biopsy. MRI protocol included 3DT2w images, high resolution Fov Optimized and Constrained Undistorted Single-Shot (FOCUS™) DWI images with b-values of 100, 400, 800, and 2000 s/mm2 and dynamic contrast enhanced images. C-DWI images (2000 and 2500 s/mm2) were derived from the three lower acquired b-value DWI images using a mono-exponential diffusion decay. C-DWI and acquired high b-value DWI (a-DWI) (2000 s/mm2) were compared for image quality (background signal suppression, anatomic clarity, ghosting, distortion) and tumor conspicuity by four radiologists. RESULTS: C-DWIs demonstrated higher rating than a-DWIs for overall image quality despite worsened ghosting. In patients with a biopsy, similar detection rate was observed while conspicuity was better with c-DWI (p < 0.001). Non-acquisition of high b-value a-DWI reduced total acquisition time by 220 s per patient. CONCLUSION: C-DWI provides a substantial reduction in acquisition time while maintaining comparable prostate cancer detection rate and improving global image quality. KEY POINTS: • Computed DWI improves global quality of prostate MRI. • Computed DWI improves analysis of DWI images with decrease acquisition time. • Computed DWI provides greater background suppression of parenchyma and improves conspicuity of suspicious lesion.
OBJECTIVE: To compare computed high b-value diffusion-weighted images (c-DWI) derived from low b-value DWI images and acquired high b-value DWI (a-DWI), in overall image quality and prostate cancer detection rate. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 124 consecutive men with suspected prostate cancer (PCa) underwent diagnosis prostate MRI on a 3.0 T MR system using a 32-channel phased-array torso coil. Among them, 63 underwent prostate biopsy. MRI protocol included 3DT2w images, high resolution Fov Optimized and Constrained Undistorted Single-Shot (FOCUS™) DWI images with b-values of 100, 400, 800, and 2000 s/mm2 and dynamic contrast enhanced images. C-DWI images (2000 and 2500 s/mm2) were derived from the three lower acquired b-value DWI images using a mono-exponential diffusion decay. C-DWI and acquired high b-value DWI (a-DWI) (2000 s/mm2) were compared for image quality (background signal suppression, anatomic clarity, ghosting, distortion) and tumor conspicuity by four radiologists. RESULTS: C-DWIs demonstrated higher rating than a-DWIs for overall image quality despite worsened ghosting. In patients with a biopsy, similar detection rate was observed while conspicuity was better with c-DWI (p < 0.001). Non-acquisition of high b-value a-DWI reduced total acquisition time by 220 s per patient. CONCLUSION: C-DWI provides a substantial reduction in acquisition time while maintaining comparable prostate cancer detection rate and improving global image quality. KEY POINTS: • Computed DWI improves global quality of prostate MRI. • Computed DWI improves analysis of DWI images with decrease acquisition time. • Computed DWI provides greater background suppression of parenchyma and improves conspicuity of suspicious lesion.
Entities:
Keywords:
Diagnostic imaging; Diffusion-weighted MRI; Magnetic resonance imaging; Prostatic neoplasms
Authors: A R Padhani; V S Khoo; J Suckling; J E Husband; M O Leach; D P Dearnaley Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 1999-06-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Hersh Chandarana; Nicole Hindman; Fang-Ming Deng; James S Babb; Samir S Taneja; Christian Geppert Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2013-06-12 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Y Ueno; S Takahashi; Y Ohno; K Kitajima; M Yui; Y Kassai; F Kawakami; H Miyake; K Sugimura Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2015-01-21 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Jonathan I Epstein; Lars Egevad; Mahul B Amin; Brett Delahunt; John R Srigley; Peter A Humphrey Journal: Am J Surg Pathol Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 6.394
Authors: Veeru Kasivisvanathan; Antti S Rannikko; Marcelo Borghi; Valeria Panebianco; Lance A Mynderse; Markku H Vaarala; Alberto Briganti; Lars Budäus; Giles Hellawell; Richard G Hindley; Monique J Roobol; Scott Eggener; Maneesh Ghei; Arnauld Villers; Franck Bladou; Geert M Villeirs; Jaspal Virdi; Silvan Boxler; Grégoire Robert; Paras B Singh; Wulphert Venderink; Boris A Hadaschik; Alain Ruffion; Jim C Hu; Daniel Margolis; Sébastien Crouzet; Laurence Klotz; Samir S Taneja; Peter Pinto; Inderbir Gill; Clare Allen; Francesco Giganti; Alex Freeman; Stephen Morris; Shonit Punwani; Norman R Williams; Chris Brew-Graves; Jonathan Deeks; Yemisi Takwoingi; Mark Emberton; Caroline M Moore Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2018-03-18 Impact factor: 176.079
Authors: Thomas Sartoretti; Elisabeth Sartoretti; Michael Wyss; Manoj Mannil; Luuk van Smoorenburg; Barbara Eichenberger; Carolin Reischauer; Alex Alfieri; Christoph Binkert; Sabine Sartoretti-Schefer Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2021-02-17 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Maria Jose Acosta-Falomir; Juan Carlos Angulo-Lozano; Luisa Fernanda Sanchez-Musi; Danny Soria Céspedes; Yeni Fernández de Lara Barrera Journal: Cureus Date: 2022-03-03
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