Korean Journal of Radiology

  • 제22권6호
  • /
  • Pages.922-930
  • /
  • 2021
  • /
  • 1229-6929(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2005-8330(eISSN)
대한영상의학회 (The Korean Society of Radiology)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

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

  • So Yeon Cha (Department of Radiology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine) ;
  • EunJu Kim (Philips Healthcare) ;
  • Sung Yoon Park (Department of Radiology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine)
  • 투고 : 2020.07.07
  • 심사 : 2020.10.19
  • 발행 : 2021.06.01
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Objective: It is uncertain why a b-value range of 1500-2000 s/mm2 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/mm2 using dedicated software and true DWI data at b-values of 0, 100, and 1000 s/mm2. 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/mm2 and 1640-1771 s/mm2 (median, 1790 s/mm2 vs. 1705 s/mm2; p = 0.003) for reader 1, and 1835-1895 s/mm2 and 1705-1841 s/mm2 (median, 1872 s/mm2 vs. 1763 s/mm2; p = 0.022) for reader 2, respectively. Interquartile ranges of qualitatively and quantitatively selected optimal b-values were 1735-1873 s/mm2 and 1573-1867 s/mm2 for reader 1, and 1775-1945 s/mm2 and 1591-1955 s/mm2 for reader 2, respectively. Bland-Altman plots consistently demonstrated a mean difference of less than 100 s/mm2 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/mm2.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, Cornud F, Haider MA, Macura KJ, et al. PI-RADS prostate imaging-reporting and data system: 2015, version 2. Eur Urol 2016;69:16-40 
  2. Turkbey B, Rosenkrantz AB, Haider MA, Padhani AR, Villeirs G, Macura KJ, et al. Prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2.1: 2019 update of prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2. Eur Urol 2019;76:340-351 
  3. Ueno YR, Tamada T, Takahashi S, Tanaka U, Sofue K, Kanda T, et al. Computed diffusion-weighted imaging in prostate cancer: basics, advantages, cautions, and future prospects. Korean J Radiol 2018;19:832-837 
  4. Maas MC, Futterer JJ, Scheenen TW. Quantitative evaluation of computed high B value diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate. Invest Radiol 2013;48:779-786 
  5. Rosenkrantz AB, Parikh N, Kierans AS, Kong MX, Babb JS, Taneja SS, et al. Prostate cancer detection using computed very high b-value diffusion-weighted imaging: how high should we go? Acad Radiol 2016;23:704-711 
  6. Waseda Y, Yoshida S, Takahara T, Kwee TC, Matsuoka Y, Saito K, et al. Utility of computed diffusion-weighted MRI for predicting aggressiveness of prostate cancer. J Magn Reson Imaging 2017;46:490-496 
  7. Feuerlein S, Davenport MS, Krishnaraj A, Merkle EM, Gupta RT. Computed high b-value diffusion-weighted imaging improves lesion contrast and conspicuity in prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2015;18:155-160 
  8. Rosenkrantz AB, Chandarana H, Hindman N, Deng FM, Babb JS, Taneja SS, et al. Computed diffusion-weighted imaging of the prostate at 3 T: impact on image quality and tumour detection. Eur Radiol 2013;23:3170-3177 
  9. Ueno Y, Takahashi S, Kitajima K, Kimura T, Aoki I, Kawakami F, et al. Computed diffusion-weighted imaging using 3-T magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer diagnosis. Eur Radiol 2013;23:3509-3516 
  10. Thormer G, Otto J, Reiss-Zimmermann M, Seiwerts M, Moche M, Garnov N, et al. Diagnostic value of ADC in patients with prostate cancer: influence of the choice of b values. Eur Radiol 2012;22:1820-1828 
  11. Sahoo P, Rockne RC, Jung A, Gupta PK, Rathore RKS, Gupta RK. Synthetic apparent diffusion coefficient for high b-value diffusion-weighted MRI in prostate. Prostate Cancer 2020;2020:5091218 
  12. Lee SJ, Oh YT, Jung DC, Cho NH, Choi YD, Park SY. Combined analysis of biparametric MRI and prostate-specific antigen density: role in the prebiopsy diagnosis of Gleason score 7 or greater prostate cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2018;211:W166-W172 
  13. Bajgiran AM, Mirak SA, Sung K, Sisk AE, Reiter RE, Raman SS. Apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) ratio versus conventional ADC for detecting clinically significant prostate cancer with 3-T MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2019;213:W134-W142 
  14. Tamada T, Kanomata N, Sone T, Jo Y, Miyaji Y, Higashi H, et al. High b value (2,000 s/mm2) diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer at 3 Tesla: comparison with 1,000 s/mm2 for tumor conspicuity and discrimination of aggressiveness. PLoS One 2014;9:e96619 
  15. Pierorazio PM, Walsh PC, Partin AW, Epstein JI. Prognostic Gleason grade grouping: data based on the modified Gleason scoring system. BJU Int 2013;111:753-760 
  16. Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Briers E, Cumberbatch MG, De Santis M, et al. EAU-ESTRO-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol 2017;71:618-629 
  17. Fulgham PF, Rukstalis DB, Turkbey IB, Rubenstein JN, Taneja S, Carroll PR, et al. AUA policy statement on the use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis, staging and management of prostate cancer. J Urol 2017;198:832-838 
  18. Gupta RT, Spilseth B, Patel N, Brown AF, Yu J. Multiparametric prostate MRI: focus on T2-weighted imaging and role in staging of prostate cancer. Abdom Radiol (NY) 2016;41:831-843 
  19. Borofsky S, George AK, Gaur S, Bernardo M, Greer MD, Mertan FV, et al. What are we missing? False-negative cancers at multiparametric MR imaging of the prostate. Radiology 2018;286:186-195