M Klingebiel1, T Ullrich2, M Quentin3, D Bonekamp4, J Aissa5, D Mally6, C Arsov7, P Albers8, G Antoch9, L Schimmöller10. 1. University Dusseldorf, Medical Faculty, Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Moorenstr. 5, D-40225 Dusseldorf, Germany. Electronic address: Maximilian.klingebiel@med.uni-duesseldorf.de. 2. University Dusseldorf, Medical Faculty, Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Moorenstr. 5, D-40225 Dusseldorf, Germany. Electronic address: Tim.Ullrich@med.uni-duesseldorf.de. 3. University Dusseldorf, Medical Faculty, Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Moorenstr. 5, D-40225 Dusseldorf, Germany. Electronic address: micha.quentin@gmail.com. 4. Division of Radiology (E010), German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Im Neuenheimer Feld 280, D-69120 Heidelberg, Germany. Electronic address: d.bonekamp@dkfz-heidelberg.de. 5. University Dusseldorf, Medical Faculty, Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Moorenstr. 5, D-40225 Dusseldorf, Germany. Electronic address: Joel.aissa@med.uni-duesseldorf.de. 6. University Dusseldorf, Medical Faculty, Department of Urology, Moorenstr. 5, D-40225 Dusseldorf, Germany. Electronic address: David.mally@med.uni-duesseldorf.de. 7. University Dusseldorf, Medical Faculty, Department of Urology, Moorenstr. 5, D-40225 Dusseldorf, Germany. Electronic address: Christian.Arsov@med.uni-duesseldorf.de. 8. University Dusseldorf, Medical Faculty, Department of Urology, Moorenstr. 5, D-40225 Dusseldorf, Germany. Electronic address: Peter.Albers@med.uni-duesseldorf.de. 9. University Dusseldorf, Medical Faculty, Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Moorenstr. 5, D-40225 Dusseldorf, Germany. Electronic address: Antoch@med.uni-duesseldorf.de. 10. University Dusseldorf, Medical Faculty, Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Moorenstr. 5, D-40225 Dusseldorf, Germany. Electronic address: Lars.Schimmoeller@med.uni-duesseldorf.de.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study evaluates objective and subjective image quality (IQ) of three different diffusion weighted imaging (DWI) sequences in prostate MRI at 3.0 Tesla within the same patients. METHOD: Thirty-six consecutive patients (70 ± 8 years) with multi-parametric prostate MRI (mp-MRI; 3 T) and subsequently verified prostate cancer (PCa) by targeted plus systematic MR/US-fusion biopsy from 03/2016 to 12/2017 were included. Readout-segmented (rs) multi shot echo-planar imaging (EPI), parallel transmit (ptx) EPI, and single-shot (ss) EPI with b-values of 0, (500,) 1,000 s/mm² and calculated b1,500 were prospectively acquired of every patient. Signal intensities (SI) of PCa and benign tissue (peripheral and transition zone; PZ and TZ) in ADC, b1,000, and calculated b1,500 images were analyzed. Endpoints were signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), and subjective IQ on a 5-point scale by two blinded readers. RESULTS: For ss-EPI ADC, b-values of 1,000, and calculated 1,500 s/mm² images showed a higher SNR compared to rs-EPI and ptx-EPI (p < 0.01). CNR of PCa and benign tissue was significantly higher for rs-EPI in high b value images compared to ptx-EPI and ss-EPI (p < 0.01). Subjective IQ was significantly higher for rs-EPI (p < 0.01). Significantly higher ADC reduction combined with signal increase on high b value images for PCa compared to the surrounding healthy tissue in PZ and TZ (PCa contrast intensity) was detected for rs-EPI (p < 0.01). Single PCa lesions could only be recognized and correlated on rs-EPI. CONCLUSIONS: Rs-EPI and ptx-EPI were superior to ss-EPI regarding contrast intensity of PCA, but inferior regarding SNR. Subjective imaging parameters were superior for rs-EPI. Especially rs-EPI, but also ptx-EPI might improve and faciliate prostate cancer detection, rs-EPI at the expense of a longer acquisition time.
PURPOSE: This study evaluates objective and subjective image quality (IQ) of three different diffusion weighted imaging (DWI) sequences in prostate MRI at 3.0 Tesla within the same patients. METHOD: Thirty-six consecutive patients (70 ± 8 years) with multi-parametric prostate MRI (mp-MRI; 3 T) and subsequently verified prostate cancer (PCa) by targeted plus systematic MR/US-fusion biopsy from 03/2016 to 12/2017 were included. Readout-segmented (rs) multi shot echo-planar imaging (EPI), parallel transmit (ptx) EPI, and single-shot (ss) EPI with b-values of 0, (500,) 1,000 s/mm² and calculated b1,500 were prospectively acquired of every patient. Signal intensities (SI) of PCa and benign tissue (peripheral and transition zone; PZ and TZ) in ADC, b1,000, and calculated b1,500 images were analyzed. Endpoints were signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), and subjective IQ on a 5-point scale by two blinded readers. RESULTS: For ss-EPI ADC, b-values of 1,000, and calculated 1,500 s/mm² images showed a higher SNR compared to rs-EPI and ptx-EPI (p < 0.01). CNR of PCa and benign tissue was significantly higher for rs-EPI in high b value images compared to ptx-EPI and ss-EPI (p < 0.01). Subjective IQ was significantly higher for rs-EPI (p < 0.01). Significantly higher ADC reduction combined with signal increase on high b value images for PCa compared to the surrounding healthy tissue in PZ and TZ (PCa contrast intensity) was detected for rs-EPI (p < 0.01). Single PCa lesions could only be recognized and correlated on rs-EPI. CONCLUSIONS:Rs-EPI and ptx-EPI were superior to ss-EPI regarding contrast intensity of PCA, but inferior regarding SNR. Subjective imaging parameters were superior for rs-EPI. Especially rs-EPI, but also ptx-EPI might improve and faciliate prostate cancer detection, rs-EPI at the expense of a longer acquisition time.
Authors: M Boschheidgen; L Schimmöller; C Arsov; F Ziayee; J Morawitz; B Valentin; K L Radke; M Giessing; I Esposito; P Albers; G Antoch; T Ullrich Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2021-11-08 Impact factor: 7.034
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