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
Published online Aug 28, 2015. doi: 10.4329/wjr.v7.i8.184
Ref. | No. ofpatients | Pathologic reference | b-values(s/mm2) | MR parameters | Quantitative parameters1 | Significance |
Quentin et al[14] | 31 | Biopsy | 0, 300, 600, 1000 | 3.0 T; TR/TE: 1700/101 ms; FOV: 204 × 204 mm; Matrix: 136 × 136; slice thickness: 6 mm; iPAT factor, 2; 4 averages | Kaxial, PCa: 1.78 ± 0.39 Kaxial, TZ: 1.40 ± 0.12 Kaxial, PZ: 1.09 ± 0.12 | DKI better fit than monoexponential; Difference for K between PCa and normal TZ/PZ is significant |
Rosenkrantz et al[16] | 47 | Biopsy | 0, 500, 1000, 1500, 2000 | 3.0 T; TR/TE: 3500/81 ms; FOV: 280 mm × 218 mm; Matrix: 100 × 100; slice thickness: 4 mm; iPAT factor, 2; 6 averages | K, high GS: 1.05 ± 0.26 K, low GS: 0.89 ± 0.20 K, PZ: 0.57 ± 0.07 | Significant 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] | 19 | RP | 0, 500, 800, 1200, 1500, 2000 | 3.0 T; TR/TE: 3940/106 ms; FOV: 280 mm × 280 mm; Matrix: 128 × 128; slice thickness/gap: 3/1 mm; 4 averages | K, PCa: 0.96 ± 0.20 K, PZ: 0.59 ± 0.08 | Significant difference for K between PCa and normal PZ; GS correlates significantly with K |
Tamura et al[18] | 20 | RP | 0, 10, 20, 30, 50, 80, 100, 200, 400, 1000, 1500 | 3.0 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 = 2 | K, PCa: 1.19 ± 0.24 K, BPH: 0.99 ± 0.28 K, PZ: 0.63 ± 0.23 | Significant difference for K between PCa and normal PZ but marked overlap for K between PCa and BPH |
- Citation: Vargas HA, Lawrence EM, Mazaheri Y, Sala E. Updates in advanced diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging techniques in the evaluation of prostate cancer. World J Radiol 2015; 7(8): 184-188
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1949-8470/full/v7/i8/184.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4329/wjr.v7.i8.184