Why Is a b-value Range of 1500-2000 s/mm2 Optimal for Evaluating Prostatic Index Lesions on Synthetic Diffusion-Weighted Imaging?

被引:10
作者
Cha, So Yeon [1 ]
Kim, EunJu [2 ]
Park, Sung Yoon [1 ]
机构
[1] Sungkyunkwan Univ, Dept Radiol, Samsung Med Ctr, Sch Med, 81 Irwon Ro, Seoul 06351, South Korea
[2] Philips Hlthcare, Seoul, South Korea
关键词
Prostate; Magnetic resonance imaging; Diffusion; Neoplasm; DIAGNOSIS; MRI;
D O I
10.3348/kjr.2020.0836
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
Objective: It is uncertain why a b-value range of 1500-2000 s/mm(2) is optimal. This study was aimed at qualitatively and quantitatively analyzing the optimal b-value range of synthetic diffusion-weighted imaging (sDWI) for evaluating prostatic index lesions. Materials and Methods: This retrospective study included 92 patients who underwent DWI and targeted biopsy for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-suggested index lesions. We generated sDWI at a b-value range of 1000-3000 s/mm(2) using dedicated software and true DWI data at b-values of 0, 100, and 1000 s/mm(2). We hypothesized that lesion conspicuity would be best when the background (i.e., MRI-suggested benign prostatic [bP] and periprostatic [pP] regions) signal intensity (SI) is suppressed and becomes homogeneous. To prove this hypothesis, we performed both qualitative and quantitative analyses. For qualitative analysis, two independent readers analyzed the b-value showing the best visual conspicuity of an MRI-suggested index lesion. For quantitative analysis, the readers assessed the b-value showing the same bP and pP region SI. The 95% confidence interval (CI) or interquartile range of qualitatively and quantitatively selected optimal b-values was assessed, and the mean difference between qualitatively and quantitatively selected b-values was investigated. Results: The 95% CIs of optimal b-values from qualitative and quantitative analyses were 1761-1805 s/mm(2) and 1640-1771 s/mm(2) (median, 1790 s/mm(2) vs. 1705 s/mm(2); p = 0.003) for reader 1, and 1835-1895 s/mm(2) and 1705-1841 s/mm(2) (median, 1872 s/mm(2) vs. 1763 s/mm(2); p = 0.022) for reader 2, respectively. Interquartile ranges of qualitatively and quantitatively selected optimal b-values were 1735-1873 s/mm(2) and 1573-1867 s/mm(2) for reader 1, and 1775-1945 s/mm(2) and 1591-1955 s/mm(2) for reader 2, respectively. Bland-Altman plots consistently demonstrated a mean difference of less than 100 s/mm(2) between qualitatively and quantitatively selected optimal b-values. Conclusion: b-value range showing a homogeneous background signal may be optimal for evaluating prostatic index lesions on sDWI. Our qualitative and quantitative data consistently recommend b-values of 1500-2000 s/mm(2).
引用
收藏
页码:922 / 930
页数:9
相关论文
共 19 条
  • [1] Apparent Diffusion Coefficient (ADC) Ratio Versus Conventional ADC for Detecting Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer With 3-T MRI
    Bajgiran, Amirhossein Mohammadian
    Mirak, Sohrab Afshari
    Sung, Kyunghyun
    Sisk, Anthony E.
    Reiter, Robert E.
    Raman, Steven S.
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2019, 213 (03) : W134 - W142
  • [2] What Are We Missing? False-Negative Cancers at Multiparametric MR Imaging of the Prostate
    Borofsky, Samuel
    George, Arvin K.
    Gaur, Sonia
    Bernardo, Marcelino
    Greer, Matthew D.
    Mertan, Francesca V.
    Taffel, Myles
    Moreno, Vanesa
    Merino, Maria J.
    Wood, Bradford J.
    Pinto, Peter A.
    Choyke, Peter L.
    Turkbey, Baris
    [J]. RADIOLOGY, 2018, 286 (01) : 186 - 195
  • [3] Computed high b-value diffusion-weighted imaging improves lesion contrast and conspicuity in prostate cancer
    Feuerlein, S.
    Davenport, M. S.
    Krishnaraj, A.
    Merkle, E. M.
    Gupta, R. T.
    [J]. PROSTATE CANCER AND PROSTATIC DISEASES, 2015, 18 (02) : 155 - 160
  • [4] AUA Policy Statement on the Use of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Diagnosis, Staging and Management of Prostate Cancer
    Fulgham, Pat F.
    Rukstalis, Daniel B.
    Turkbey, Ismail Baris
    Rubenstein, Jonathan N.
    Taneja, Samir
    Carroll, Peter R.
    Pinto, Peter A.
    Bjurlin, Marc A.
    Eggener, Scott
    [J]. JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2017, 198 (04) : 832 - 838
  • [5] Multiparametric prostate MRI: focus on T2-weighted imaging and role in staging of prostate cancer
    Gupta, Rajan T.
    Spilseth, Benjamin
    Patel, Nayana
    Brown, Alison F.
    Yu, Jinxing
    [J]. ABDOMINAL RADIOLOGY, 2016, 41 (05) : 831 - 843
  • [6] Combined Analysis of Biparametric MRI and Prostate-Specific Antigen Density: Role in the Prebiopsy Diagnosis of Gleason Score 7 or Greater Prostate Cancer
    Lee, Suji
    Oh, Young Taik
    Jung, Dae Chul
    Cho, Nam Hoon
    Choi, Young Deuk
    Park, Sung Yoon
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2018, 211 (03) : W166 - W172
  • [7] Quantitative Evaluation of Computed High b Value Diffusion-Weighted Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Prostate
    Maas, Marnix C.
    Futterer, Jurgen J.
    Scheenen, Tom W. J.
    [J]. INVESTIGATIVE RADIOLOGY, 2013, 48 (11) : 779 - 786
  • [8] EAU-ESTRO-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. Part 1: Screening, Diagnosis, and Local Treatment with Curative Intent
    Mottet, Nicolas
    Bellmunt, Joaquim
    Bolla, Michel
    Briers, Erik
    Cumberbatch, Marcus G.
    De Santis, Maria
    Fossati, Nicola
    Gross, Tobias
    Henry, Ann M.
    Joniau, Steven
    Lam, Thomas B.
    Mason, Malcolm D.
    Matveev, Vsevolod B.
    Moldovan, Paul C.
    van den Bergh, Roderick C. N.
    Van den Broeck, Thomas
    van der Poel, Henk G.
    van der Kwast, Theo H.
    Rouviere, Olivier
    Schoots, Ivo G.
    Wiegel, Thomas
    Cornford, Philip
    [J]. EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2017, 71 (04) : 618 - 629
  • [9] Pierorazio PM, 2013, BJU INT, V111, P753, DOI 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11611.x
  • [10] Prostate Cancer Detection Using Computed Very High b-value Diffusion-weighted Imaging: How High Should We Go?
    Rosenkrantz, Andrew B.
    Parikh, Nainesh
    Kierans, Andrea S.
    Kong, Max Xiangtian
    Babb, James S.
    Taneja, Samir S.
    Ream, Justin M.
    [J]. ACADEMIC RADIOLOGY, 2016, 23 (06) : 704 - 711