Editorial
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2015.
World J Radiol. Aug 28, 2015; 7(8): 184-188
Published online Aug 28, 2015. doi: 10.4329/wjr.v7.i8.184
Table 2 Clinical studies of diffusion kurtosis imaging in prostate cancer
Ref.No. ofpatientsPathologic referenceb-values(s/mm2)MR parametersQuantitative parameters1Significance
Quentin et al[14]31Biopsy0, 300, 600, 10003.0 T; TR/TE: 1700/101 ms; FOV: 204 × 204 mm; Matrix: 136 × 136; slice thickness: 6 mm; iPAT factor, 2; 4 averagesKaxial, PCa: 1.78 ± 0.39 Kaxial, TZ: 1.40 ± 0.12 Kaxial, PZ: 1.09 ± 0.12DKI better fit than monoexponential; Difference for K between PCa and normal TZ/PZ is significant
Rosenkrantz et al[16]47Biopsy0, 500, 1000, 1500, 20003.0 T; TR/TE: 3500/81 ms; FOV: 280 mm × 218 mm; Matrix: 100 × 100; slice thickness: 4 mm; iPAT factor, 2; 6 averagesK, high GS: 1.05 ± 0.26 K, low GS: 0.89 ± 0.20 K, PZ: 0.57 ± 0.07Significant difference between K in high GS vs low GS sextants; K found to have better sensitivity, AUC than ADC or D for PCa
Suo et al[17]19RP0, 500, 800, 1200, 1500, 20003.0 T; TR/TE: 3940/106 ms; FOV: 280 mm × 280 mm; Matrix: 128 × 128; slice thickness/gap: 3/1 mm; 4 averagesK, PCa: 0.96 ± 0.20 K, PZ: 0.59 ± 0.08Significant difference for K between PCa and normal PZ; GS correlates significantly with K
Tamura et al[18]20RP0, 10, 20, 30, 50, 80, 100, 200, 400, 1000, 15003.0 T; TR/TE: 5000/49 ms; FOV: 240 × 240 mm; Matrix: 80 × 80; slice thickness/gap: 3.5/0.1 mm; iPAT factor, 2; NEX = 2K, PCa: 1.19 ± 0.24 K, BPH: 0.99 ± 0.28 K, PZ: 0.63 ± 0.23Significant difference for K between PCa and normal PZ but marked overlap for K between PCa and BPH