Whole-body 3D T1-weighted MR imaging in patients with prostate cancer: Feasibility and evaluation in screening for metastatic disease

Radiology

Volumn 275, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 155-166

  Pasoglou, Vasiliki ^a   Michoux, Nicolas ^a   Peeters, Frank ^a   Larbi, Ahmed ^a   Tombal, Bertrand ^a   Selleslagh, Tom ^a   Omoumi, Patrick ^b   Berg, Bruno C Vande ^a   Lecouvet, Frédéric E ^a  

^a CLINIQUES UNIVERSITAIRES SAINT LUC   (Belgium)

^b LAUSANNE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AGED; ARTICLE; BONE METASTASIS; CANCER STAGING; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CONTRAST TO NOISE RATIO; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; HIGH RISK PATIENT; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGE QUALITY; LYMPH NODE METASTASIS; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE SCANNER; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; PROSTATE CANCER; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SIGNAL NOISE RATIO; THREE DIMENSIONAL IMAGING; WHOLE BODY MRI; BLOOD; BONE TUMOR; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; LYMPHATIC METASTASIS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PATHOLOGY; PROCEDURES; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; SECONDARY; WHOLE BODY IMAGING;

ANTIANDROGEN; PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN; TUMOR MARKER;

AGED; ANDROGEN ANTAGONISTS; BONE NEOPLASMS; HUMANS; IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; IMAGING, THREE-DIMENSIONAL; LYMPHATIC METASTASIS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; PROSTATE-SPECIFIC ANTIGEN; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TUMOR MARKERS, BIOLOGICAL; WHOLE BODY IMAGING;

EID: 84926433846     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: 15271315     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.14141242     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Antoch G, Vogt FM, Freudenberg LS, et al. Whole-body dual-modality PET/CT and whole-body MRI for tumor staging in oncology. JAMA 2003;290(24):3199-3206.
2. Daldrup-Link HE, Franzius C, Link TM, et al. Whole-body MR imaging for detection of bone metastases in children and young adults: comparison with skeletal scintigraphy and FDG PET. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001;177(1):229-236.
3. Lauenstein TC, Goehde SC, Herborn CU, et al. Whole-body MR imaging: evaluation Table 6 Lesion-based Analysis: Interobserver Agreement in 30 Patients Sequence Bone Lesions Node Lesions 2D T1 weighted 0.988 (0.975, 0.994) 0.876 (0.757, 0.939) 2D T1 weighted + PDFS 0.993 (0.985, 0.007) 0.639 (0.365, 0.811) 3D T1 weighted 0.993 (0.986, 0.997) 0.965 (0.928, 0.983) Note.-Data are intraclass correlation coefficients. Numbers in parentheses are the 95% CI. of patients for metastases. Radiology 2004;233(1):139-148.
4. Lecouvet FE, Simon M, Tombal B, Jamart J, Vande Berg BC, Simoni P. Whole-body MRI (WB-MRI) versus axial skeleton MRI (ASMRI) to detect and measure bone metastases in prostate cancer (PCa). Eur Radiol 2010;20(12):2973-2982.
5. Sohaib SA, Cook G, Allen SD, Hughes M, Eisen T, Gore M. Comparison of wholebody MRI and bone scintigraphy in the detection of bone metastases in renal cancer. Br J Radiol 2009;82(980):632-639.
6. Weckbach S, Michaely HJ, Stemmer A, Schoenberg SO, Dinter DJ. Comparison of a new whole-body continuous-table-movement protocol versus a standard whole-body MR protocol for the assessment of multiple myeloma. Eur Radiol 2010;20(12):2907-2916.
7. Dutoit JC, Vanderkerken MA, Verstraete KL. Value of whole body MRI and dynamic contrast enhanced MRI in the diagnosis, followup and evaluation of disease activity and extent in multiple myeloma. Eur J Radiol 2013;82(9):1444-1452.
8. Lecouvet FE, El Mouedden J, Collette L, et al. Can whole-body magnetic resonance imaging with diffusion-weighted imaging replace Tc 99m bone scanning and computed tomography for single-step detection of metastases in patients with high-risk prostate cancer? Eur Urol 2012;62(1):68-75.
9. Nakanishi K, Kobayashi M, Nakaguchi K, et al. Whole-body MRI for detecting metastatic bone tumor: diagnostic value of diffusionweighted images. Magn Reson Med Sci 2007;6(3):147-155.
10. Mosavi F, Johansson S, Sandberg DT, Turesson I, Sörensen J, Ahlström H. Wholebody diffusion-weighted MRI compared with (18) F-NaF PET/CT for detection of bone metastases in patients with high-risk prostate carcinoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2012;199(5):1114-1120.
11. Choi JY, Kim MJ, Lee JM, et al. Magnetic resonance cholangiography: comparison of two- and three-dimensional sequences for assessment of malignant biliary obstruction. Eur Radiol 2008;18(1):78-86.
12. Hori M, Kim T, Onishi H, et al. Uterine tumors: comparison of 3D versus 2D T2-weighted turbo spin-echo MR imaging at 3.0 T-initial experience. Radiology 2011;258(1):154-163.
13. Kijowski R, Davis KW, Woods MA, et al. Knee joint: comprehensive assessment with 3D isotropic resolution fast spin-echo MR imaging-diagnostic performance compared with that of conventional MR imaging at 3.0 T. Radiology 2009;252(2):486-495.
14. Kwon JW, Yoon YC, Choi SH. Three-dimensional isotropic T2-weighted cervical MRI at 3T: comparison with two-dimensional T2-weighted sequences. Clin Radiol 2012;67(2):106-113.
15. Hecht EM, Yitta S, Lim RP, et al. Preliminary clinical experience at 3 T with a 3D T2-weighted sequence compared with multiplanar 2D for evaluation of the female pelvis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2011;197(2):W346-W352.
16. Jung JY, Yoon YC, Choi SH, Kwon JW, Yoo J, Choe BK. Three-dimensional isotropic shoulder MR arthrography: comparison with two-dimensional MR arthrography for the diagnosis of labral lesions at 3.0 T. Radiology 2009;250(2):498-505.
17. Heusner TA, Kuemmel S, Koeninger A, et al. Diagnostic value of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DWI) compared to FDG PET/CT for whole-body breast cancer staging. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2010;37(6):1077-1086.
18. Koh DM, Blackledge M, Padhani AR, et al. Whole-body diffusion-weighted MRI: tips, tricks, and pitfalls. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2012;199(2):252-262.
19. Lecouvet FE, Vande Berg BC, Malghem J, Omoumi P, Simoni P. Diffusion-weighted MR imaging: adjunct or alternative to T1-weighted MR imaging for prostate carcinoma bone metastases? Radiology 2009;252(2):624.
20. Ohno Y, Koyama H, Onishi Y, et al. Non-small cell lung cancer: whole-body MR examination for M-stage assessment-utility for whole-body diffusion-weighted imaging compared with integrated FDG PET/CT. Radiology 2008;248(2):643-654.
21. Lecouvet FE, Geukens D, Stainier A, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of the axial skeleton for detecting bone metastases in patients with high-risk prostate cancer: diagnostic and cost-effectiveness and comparison with current detection strategies. J Clin Oncol 2007;25(22):3281-3287.
22. Tombal B, Alcaraz A, James N, Valdagni R, Irani J. Can we improve the definition of highrisk, hormone naïve, non-metastatic prostate cancer? BJU Int 2014;113(2):189-199.
23. Park J, Mugler JP 3rd, Horger W, Kiefer B. Optimized T1-weighted contrast for singleslab 3D turbo spin-echo imaging with long echo trains: application to whole-brain imaging. Magn Reson Med 2007;58(5):982-992.
24. Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer 2009;45(2):228-247.
25. Koh DM, Hughes M, Husband JE. Cross-sectional imaging of nodal metastases in the abdomen and pelvis. Abdom Imaging 2006;31(6):632-643.
26. Gudbjartsson H, Patz S. The Rician distribution of noisy MRI data. Magn Reson Med 1995;34(6):910-914.
27. Zweig MH, Campbell G. Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) plots: a fundamental evaluation tool in clinical medicine. Clin Chem 1993;39(4):561-577.
28. De Long ER, De Long DM, Clarke-Pearson DL. Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics 1988;44(3):837-845.
29. Liddell FD. Simplified exact analysis of casereferent studies: matched pairs; dichotomous exposure. J Epidemiol Community Health 1983;37(1):82-84.
30. Scott WA. Reliability of content analysis: the case of nominal scale coding. Public Opin Q 1955;19(3):321-325.
31. McGraw KO, Wong SP. Forming inferences about some intraclass correlation coefficients. Psychol Methods 1996;1(1):30-46.
32. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977;33(1):159-174.
33. Avrahami E, Tadmor R, Dally O, Hadar H. Early MR demonstration of spinal metastases in patients with normal radiographs and CT and radionuclide bone scans. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1989;13(4):598-602.
34. Sanal SM, Flickinger FW, Caudell MJ, Sherry RM. Detection of bone marrow involvement in breast cancer with magnetic resonance imaging. J Clin Oncol 1994;12(7):1415-1421.
35. Vogler JB 3rd, Murphy WA. Bone marrow imaging. Radiology 1988;168(3):679-693.
36. Schmidt GP, Baur-Melnyk A, Haug A, et al. Comprehensive imaging of tumor recurrence in breast cancer patients using wholebody MRI at 1.5 and 3 T compared to FDGPET-CT. Eur J Radiol 2008;65(1):47-58.
37. Gutzeit A, Doert A, Froehlich JM, et al. Comparison of diffusion-weighted whole body MRI and skeletal scintigraphy for the detection of bone metastases in patients with prostate or breast carcinoma. Skeletal Radiol 2010;39(4):333-343.
38. Giles SL, Messiou C, Collins DJ, et al. Whole-body diffusion-weighted MR imaging for assessment of treatment response in myeloma. Radiology 2014;271(3):785-794.
39. Kwee TC, Fijnheer R, Ludwig I, et al. Wholebody magnetic resonance imaging, including diffusion-weighted imaging, for diagnosing bone marrow involvement in malignant lymphoma. Br J Haematol 2010;149(4):628-630.
40. Padhani AR, Koh DM, Collins DJ. Wholebody diffusion-weighted MR imaging in cancer: current status and research directions. Radiology 2011;261(3):700-718.
41. Takenaka D, Ohno Y, Matsumoto K, et al. Detection of bone metastases in non-small cell lung cancer patients: comparison of wholebody diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), whole-body MR imaging without and with DWI, whole-body FDG-PET/CT, and bone scintigraphy. J Magn Reson Imaging 2009;30(2):298-308.
42. Ghanem N, Altehoefer C, Kelly T, et al. Whole-body MRI in comparison to skeletal scintigraphy in detection of skeletal metastases in patients with solid tumors. In Vivo 2006;20(1):173-182.
43. Fischer MA, Nanz D, Hany T, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of whole-body MRI/DWI image fusion for detection of malignant tumours: a comparison with PET/CT. Eur Radiol 2011;21(2):246-255.
44. Manenti G, Cicciò C, Squillaci E, et al. Role of combined DWIBS/3D-CE-T1w wholebody MRI in tumor staging: comparison with PET-CT. Eur J Radiol 2012;81(8):1917-1925.
45. Fechtner K, Hillengass J, Delorme S, et al. Staging monoclonal plasma cell disease: comparison of the Durie-Salmon and the Durie-Salmon PLUS staging systems. Radiology 2010;257(1):195-204.
46. Punwani S, Prakash V, Bainbridge A, et al. Quantitative diffusion weighted MRI: a functional biomarker of nodal disease in Hodgkin lymphoma? Cancer Biomark 2010;7(4):249-259.
47. Cai W, Kassarjian A, Bredella MA, et al. Tumor burden in patients with neurofibromatosis types 1 and 2 and schwannomatosis: determination on whole-body MR images. Radiology 2009;250(3):665-673.