Interscanner comparison of dynamic contrast-enhanced mri in prostate cancer: 1.5 versus 3 T MRI

Investigative Radiology

Volumn 48, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 92-97

  Sertdemir, Metin ^a   Schoenberg, Stefan O ^a   Sourbron, Steven ^b   Hausmann, Daniel ^a   Heinzelbecker, Julia ^a   Michaely, Henrik J ^a   Dinter, Dietmar J ^a   Weidner, Anja M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HEIDELBERG   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

dynamic contrast enhanced; mean transit time; MRI; plasma flow; prostate

Indexed keywords

GADOLINIUM CHELATE;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BLOOD FLOW; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; GLEASON SCORE; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE BIOPSY; PROSTATE CARCINOMA; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATITIS; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 84872344975     PISSN: 00209996     EISSN: 15360210     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/RLI.0b013e31827bbcbe     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Jemal A, Siegel R, Xu J, et al. Cancer statistics, 2010. CA Cancer J Clin. 2010;60:277-300.
2. Tanimoto A, Nakashima J, Kohno H, et al. Prostate cancer screening: the clinical value of diffusion-weighted imaging and dynamic MR imaging in combination with T2-weighted imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2007; 25:146-152.
3. Futterer JJ, Heijmink SW, Scheenen TW, et al. Prostate cancer localization with dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging and proton MR spectroscopic imaging. Radiology. 2006;241:449-458.
4. Alonzi R, Padhani AR, Allen C. Dynamic contrast enhanced MRI in prostate cancer. Eur J Radiol. 2007;63:335-350.
5. Siegal JA, Yu E, Brawer MK. Topography of neovascularity in human prostate carcinoma. Cancer. 1995;75:2545-2551.
6. Tofts PS, Brix G, Buckley DL, et al. Estimating kinetic parameters from dynamic contrast-enhanced T(1)-weighted MRI of a diffusable tracer: standardized quantities and symbols. J Magn Reson Imaging. 1999;10:223-232.
7. Buckley DL, Roberts C, Parker GJ, et al. Prostate cancer: evaluation of vascular characteristics with dynamic contrast-enhanced T1-weighted MR imagingV initial experience. Radiology. 2004;233:709-715.
8. Kershaw LE, Hutchinson CE, Buckley DL. Benign prostatic hyperplasia: evaluation of T1, T2, and microvascular characteristics with T1-weighted dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2009;29:641-648.
9. Korporaal JG, van Vulpen M, van den Berg CA, et al. Tracer kinetic model selection for dynamic contrast-enhanced computed tomography imaging of prostate cancer. Invest Radiol. 2012;47:41-48.
10. Barth MM, Smith MP, Pedrosa I, et al. Body MR imaging at 3.0 T: understanding the opportunities and challenges. Radiographics. 2007;27:1445-1462.
11. de Bazelaire CM, Duhamel GD, Rofsky NM, et al. MR imaging relaxation times of abdominal and pelvic tissues measured in vivo at 3.0 T: preliminary results. Radiology. 2004;230:652-659.
12. Elster AD. How much contrast is enough? Dependence of enhancement on field strength and MR pulse sequence. Eur Radiol. 1997;7(suppl 5):276-280.
13. Bushberg J. The Essentials Physics of Medical Imaging. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2002.
14. Chang KJ, Kamel IR, Macura KJ, et al. 3.0-T MR imaging of the abdomen: comparison with 1.5 T. Radiographics. 2008;28:1983-1998.
15. Sourbron SP, Michaely HJ, Reiser MF, et al. MRI-measurement of perfusion and glomerular filtration in the human kidney with a separable compartment model. Invest Radiol. 2008;43:40-48.
16. Dujardin M, Sourbron S, Luypaert R, et al. Quantification of renal perfusion and function on a voxel-by-voxel basis: a feasibility study. Magn Reson Med. 2005;54:841-849.
17. Sourbron S, Dujardin M, Makkat S, et al. Pixel-by-pixel deconvolution of bolus-tracking data: optimization and implementation. Phys Med Biol. 2007; 52:429-447.
18. Hricak H, Choyke PL, Eberhardt SC, et al. Imaging prostate cancer: a multidisciplinary perspective. Radiology. 2007;243:28-53.
19. Engelbrecht MR, Huisman HJ, Laheij RJ, et al. Discrimination of prostate cancer from normal peripheral zone and central gland tissue by using dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology. 2003;229:248-254.
20. Weidner A, Michaely HJ, Pelzer A, et al. Imaging of prostate cancer by diagnostic radiology and nuclear medicine. Aktuelle Urol. 2010;41:35-42.
21. Choi YJ, Kim JK, Kim N, et al. Functional MR imaging of prostate cancer. Radiographics. 2007;27:63-75.
22. Franiel T, Ludemann L, Rudolph B, et al. Differentiation of prostate cancer from normal prostate tissue: role of hot spots in pharmacokinetic MRI and histologic evaluation. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;194:675-681.
23. Franiel T, Ludemann L, Rudolph B, et al. Evaluation of normal prostate tissue, chronic prostatitis, and prostate cancer by quantitative perfusion analysis using a dynamic contrast-enhanced inversion-prepared dual-contrast gradient echo sequence. Invest Radiol. 2008;43:481-487.
24. Sciarra A, Panebianco V, Ciccariello M, et al. Value of magnetic resonance spectroscopy imaging and dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging for detecting prostate cancer foci in men with prior negative biopsy. Clin Cancer Res. 2010; 16:1875-1883.
25. Iwazawa J, Mitani T, Sassa S, et al. Prostate cancer detection with MRI: is dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging necessary in addition to diffusion-weighted imaging? Diagn Interv Radiol. 2011;17:243-248.
26. Novis MI, Baroni RH, Cerri LM, et al. Clinically low-risk prostate cancer: evaluation with transrectal Doppler ultrasound and functional magnetic resonance imaging. Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2011;66:27-34.
27. Kozlowski P, Chang SD, Meng R, et al. Combined prostate diffusion tensor imaging and dynamic contrast enhanced MRI at 3TVquantitative correlation with biopsy. Magn Reson Imaging. 2010;28:621-628.
28. Noworolski SM, Vigneron DB, Chen AP, et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI and MR diffusion imaging to distinguish between glandular and stromal prostatic tissues. Magn Reson Imaging. 2008;26:1071-1080.
29. Fine SW, Epstein JI. A contemporary study correlating prostate needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy Gleason score. J Urol. 2008;179:1335-1338.
30. Somford DM, Hambrock T, Hulsbergen-van de Kaa CA, et al. Initial experience with identifying high-grade prostate cancer using diffusion-weighted MR imaging (DWI) in patients with a Gleason score e 3 + 3 = 6 upon schematic TRUS-guided biopsy: a radical prostatectomy correlated series. Invest Radiol. 2012;47:153-158.