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 | PCa values1 | Normal prostate values1 | Significance |
Döpfert et al[9] | 13 | TRUS biopsy | 0, 50, 500, 800 | 3.0 T; TR/TE: 2600/66 ms; FOV: 204 mm × 204 mm; Matrix: 136 × 136; slice thickness: 3 mm; 8 averages | ADC: 1.01 ± 0.22 D: 0.84 ± 0.19 D*: 7.52 ± 4.77 f: 14.27 ± 7.10 | ADC: 1.49 ± 0.17 D: 1.21 ± 0.22 D*: 6.82 ± 2.78 f: 21.25 ± 8.32 | ADC, D, f significantly lower in PCa vs healthy prostate tissue Higher variation in maps of D and f compared to ADC |
Shinmoto et al[10] | 26 | TRUS biopsy or RP | 0, 10, 20, 30, 50, 80, 100, 200, 400, 1000 | 3.0 T; TR/TE: 5132/40 ms; Matrix: 80 × 80; slice thickness/gap: 3.5/0.1 mm; iPAT factor, 2; NEX = 2 | ADC: 0.90 ± 0.16 D: 0.50 ± 0.15 D*: 5.35 ± 6.27 f: 35 ± 13 | ADC: 1.76 ± 0.22 D: 0.89 ± 0.24 D*: 3.02 ± 0.86 f: 58 ± 11 | ADC, D, f significantly lower in PCa vs noncancerous PZ Improved fit in 81% of study subjects for biexponential curve |
Kuru et al[11] | 27 | MR-TRUS fusion biopsy | 0, 50, 100, 150, 200, 250, 800 | 3.0 T; TR/TE: 3100/52 ms; FOV: 280 mm × 210 mm; Matrix: 128 × 96; slice thickness: 3 mm; iPAT factor, 2; 5 averages | ADC: 0.88 ± 0.29 D: 1.04 ± 0.23 D*: 31.1 ± 45.0 f: 9.5 ± 5.5 | ADC: 1.56 ± 0.23 D: 1.44 ± 0.19 D*: 10.9 ± 4.0 f: 11.1 ± 5.0 | Only D and ADC showed high AUC (≥ 0.90) for PCa vs normal Limited differentiation of PCa grade using f or D* |
Pang et al[12] | 33 | MR-TRUS fusion biopsy | 0, 188, 375, 563 | 3.0 T; TR/TE: 4584/59 ms; FOV:160 × 180 mm; slice thickness: 3.0 mm; iPAT factor, 2; 4+ averages | D: 0.99 ± 0.29 f: 7.2 ± 2.6 Ktrans: 0.39 ±0.22 Vp: 8.4 ± 6.6 | D: 1.76 ± 0.35 f: 3.7 ± 1 .9 Ktrans: 0.18 ± 0.10 Vp: 3.4 ± 2.6 | Significant increase in f for PCa vs normal prostate Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r) for f and Ktrans of 0.51 |
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