Chau Hung Lee1,2, Matthias Taupitz1, Patrick Asbach1, Julian Lenk1, Matthias Haas1. 1. Department of Radiology, Charite-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Campus Benjamin Franklin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany. 2. Department of Radiology, Tan Tock Seng Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To evaluate the clinical utility of combined T2-weighted imaging and T2-mapping for the detection of prostate cancer. METHODS: Forty patients underwent multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and T2-mapping of the prostate. Three readers each reviewed two sets of images: T2-weighted fast spin-echo (FSE) sequence (standard T2), and standard T2 in combination with T2-mapping. Each reader assigned probability scores for malignancy to each zone [peripheral zone (PZ) or transition zone (TZ)]. Inter-observer variability for standard T2 and combined standard T2 with T2-mapping were assessed. Diagnostic accuracy was compared between standard T2 and combined standard T2 with T2-mapping. RESULTS: There was fair agreement between all three readers for standard T2 [intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) =0.56] and combined standard T2 with T2-mapping (ICC =0.58). There was no significant difference in the area under the receiver operator characteristics curve for standard T2 compared to combined standard T2 with T2-mapping (0.89 vs. 0.82, P=0.31). Sensitivity (Sn) for combined standard T2 with T2-mapping was significantly higher compared to standard T2 alone (73.0% vs. 49.2%, P=0.006). Specificity (Sp) for combined standard T2 with T2-mapping was borderline significantly lower compared to standard T2 alone (89.3% vs. 94.9%, P=0.05). There was no significant differences between the negative predictive values (NPVs) and positive predictive values (PPVs) (P=0.07, P=0.45). CONCLUSIONS: Combination of T2-weighted imaging and T2-mapping could potentially increase Sn for prostate malignancy compared to T2-weighted imaging alone. 2020 Quantitative Imaging in Medicine and Surgery. All rights reserved.
BACKGROUND: To evaluate the clinical utility of combined T2-weighted imaging and T2-mapping for the detection of prostate cancer. METHODS: Forty patients underwent multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and T2-mapping of the prostate. Three readers each reviewed two sets of images: T2-weighted fast spin-echo (FSE) sequence (standard T2), and standard T2 in combination with T2-mapping. Each reader assigned probability scores for malignancy to each zone [peripheral zone (PZ) or transition zone (TZ)]. Inter-observer variability for standard T2 and combined standard T2 with T2-mapping were assessed. Diagnostic accuracy was compared between standard T2 and combined standard T2 with T2-mapping. RESULTS: There was fair agreement between all three readers for standard T2 [intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) =0.56] and combined standard T2 with T2-mapping (ICC =0.58). There was no significant difference in the area under the receiver operator characteristics curve for standard T2 compared to combined standard T2 with T2-mapping (0.89 vs. 0.82, P=0.31). Sensitivity (Sn) for combined standard T2 with T2-mapping was significantly higher compared to standard T2 alone (73.0% vs. 49.2%, P=0.006). Specificity (Sp) for combined standard T2 with T2-mapping was borderline significantly lower compared to standard T2 alone (89.3% vs. 94.9%, P=0.05). There was no significant differences between the negative predictive values (NPVs) and positive predictive values (PPVs) (P=0.07, P=0.45). CONCLUSIONS: Combination of T2-weighted imaging and T2-mapping could potentially increase Sn for prostate malignancy compared to T2-weighted imaging alone. 2020 Quantitative Imaging in Medicine and Surgery. All rights reserved.
Entities:
Keywords:
Prostate; T2-mapping; magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)
Authors: Jeffrey C Weinreb; Jelle O Barentsz; Peter L Choyke; Francois Cornud; Masoom A Haider; Katarzyna J Macura; Daniel Margolis; Mitchell D Schnall; Faina Shtern; Clare M Tempany; Harriet C Thoeny; Sadna Verma Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2015-10-01 Impact factor: 20.096
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: Deanna L Langer; Theodorus H van der Kwast; Andrew J Evans; Anna Plotkin; John Trachtenberg; Brian C Wilson; Masoom A Haider Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-05 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: John V Hegde; Robert V Mulkern; Lawrence P Panych; Fiona M Fennessy; Andriy Fedorov; Stephan E Maier; Clare M C Tempany Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2013-05 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Isabel Dregely; Daniel A J Margolis; Kyunghyun Sung; Ziwu Zhou; Novena Rangwala; Steven S Raman; Holden H Wu Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2016-01-13 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Morgan R Pokorny; Maarten de Rooij; Earl Duncan; Fritz H Schröder; Robert Parkinson; Jelle O Barentsz; Leslie C Thompson Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2014-03-14 Impact factor: 20.096