Korean Journal of Radiology

The Korean Society of Radiology (대한영상의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Feasibility of Novel Three-Dimensional Magnetic Resonance Fingerprinting of the Prostate Gland: Phantom and Clinical Studies

  • Dongyeob Han (Siemens Healthineers Ltd.) ;
  • Moon Hyung Choi (Department of Radiology, Eunpyeong St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea) ;
  • Young Joon Lee (Department of Radiology, Eunpyeong St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea) ;
  • Dong-Hyun Kim (School of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Yonsei University)
  • Received : 2020.11.16
  • Accepted : 2021.03.17
  • Published : 2021.08.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the feasibility of a new three-dimensional (3D) MR fingerprinting (MRF) technique for the prostate gland by conducting phantom and clinical studies. Materials and Methods: The new 3D MRF technique used in this study enables quick data acquisition and has a high resolution. For the phantom study, the MRF T1 and T2 values in an in-house phantom were compared with those of goldstandard mapping methods using linear regression analysis. For the clinical study, we evaluated 90 patients who underwent prostate imaging with MRF for suspected prostate cancer between September 2019 and February 2020. The mean T1 and T2 values were compared in the peripheral zone, transition zone, and focal lesions using paired t tests. The differences in the T1 and T2 values according to cancer aggressiveness were evaluated using one-way analysis of variance. Results: In the phantom study, the MRF T1 and T2 values showed a perfect correlation with the gold-standard T1 and T2 values (R > 0.99). In the clinical study, the T1 and T2 values in the peripheral zone were significantly higher than those in the transitional zone (p < 0.001, both). The T1 and T2 values in prostate cancer were significantly lower than those in the peripheral and transitional zones. The higher the grade of cancer, the lower the T2 values. Conclusion: The T1 and T2 values obtained from the 3D MRF showed a perfect correlation with the gold standard values in the phantom study. Differences in the T1 and T2 values among the different zones of the prostate gland were identified using 3D MRF in patients.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) under Grant (2018R1D1A1B07050160).

References

  1. Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC, Gabe R, Kaplan R, Parmar MK, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet 2017;389:815-822 
  2. Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M, Panebianco V, Mynderse LA, Vaarala MH, et al. MRI-targeted or standard biopsy for prostate-cancer diagnosis. N Engl J Med 2018;378:1767-1777 
  3. Baur ADJ, Hansen CM, Rogasch J, Posch H, Elezkurtaj S, Maxeiner A, et al. Evaluation of T1 relaxation time in prostate cancer and benign prostate tissue using a Modified Look-Locker inversion recovery sequence. Sci Rep 2020;10:3121 
  4. Mai J, Abubrig M, Lehmann T, Hilbert T, Weiland E, Grimm MO, et al. T2 mapping in prostate cancer. Invest Radiol 2019;54:146-152 
  5. Chatterjee A, Devaraj A, Mathew M, Szasz T, Antic T, Karczmar GS, et al. Performance of T2 maps in the detection of prostate cancer. Acad Radiol 2019;26:15-21 
  6. Foltz WD, Haider MA, Chung P, Bayley A, Catton C, Ramanan V, et al. Prostate T(1) quantification using a magnetization-prepared spiral technique. J Magn Reson Imaging 2011;33:474-481 
  7. Wu LM, Chen XX, Xuan HQ, Liu Q, Suo ST, Hu J, et al. Feasibility and preliminary experience of quantitative T2** mapping at 3.0 T for detection and assessment of aggressiveness of prostate cancer. Acad Radiol 2014;21:1020-1026 
  8. Ma D, Gulani V, Seiberlich N, Liu K, Sunshine JL, Duerk JL, et al. Magnetic resonance fingerprinting. Nature 2013;495:187-192 
  9. van Houdt PJ, Agarwal HK, van Buuren LD, Heijmink SWTPJ, Haack S, van der Poel HG, et al. Performance of a fast and high-resolution multi-echo spin-echo sequence for prostate T2 mapping across multiple systems. Magn Reson Med 2018;79:1586-1594 
  10. Panda A, Obmann VC, Lo WC, Margevicius S, Jiang Y, Schluchter M, et al. MR fingerprinting and ADC mapping for characterization of lesions in the transition zone of the prostate gland. Radiology 2019;292:685-694 
  11. Panda A, O'Connor G, Lo WC, Jiang Y, Margevicius S, Schluchter M, et al. Targeted biopsy validation of peripheral zone prostate cancer characterization with MR fingerprinting and diffusion mapping. Invest Radiol 2019;54:485-493 
  12. Yu AC, Badve C, Ponsky LE, Pahwa S, Dastmalchian S, Rogers M, et al. Development of a combined MR fingerprinting and diffusion examination for prostate cancer. Radiology 2017;283:729-738 
  13. Shiradkar R, Panda A, Leo P, Janowczyk A, Farre X, Janaki N, et al. T1 and T2 MR fingerprinting measurements of prostate cancer and prostatitis correlate with deep learning-derived estimates of epithelium, lumen, and stromal composition on corresponding whole mount histopathology. Eur Radiol 2021;31:1336-1346 
  14. Ma D, Jones SE, Deshmane A, Sakaie K, Pierre EY, Larvie M, et al. Development of high-resolution 3D MR fingerprinting for detection and characterization of epileptic lesions. J Magn Reson Imaging 2019;49:1333-1346 
  15. Yushkevich PA, Piven J, Hazlett HC, Smith RG, Ho S, Gee JC, et al. User-guided 3D active contour segmentation of anatomical structures: significantly improved efficiency and reliability. Neuroimage 2006;31:1116-1128 
  16. Liu W, Turkbey B, Senegas J, Remmele S, Xu S, Kruecker J, et al. Accelerated T2 mapping for characterization of prostate cancer. Magn Reson Med 2011;65:1400-1406 
  17. Simpkin CJ, Morgan VA, Giles SL, Riches SF, Parker C, deSouza NM. Relationship between T2 relaxation and apparent diffusion coefficient in malignant and non-malignant prostate regions and the effect of peripheral zone fractional volume. Br J Radiol 2013;86:20120469 
  18. Bojorquez JZ, Bricq S, Acquitter C, Brunotte F, Walker PM, Lalande A. What are normal relaxation times of tissues at 3 T? Magn Reson Imaging 2017;35:69-80 
  19. Bojorquez JZ, Bricq S, Brunotte F, Walker PM, Lalande A. A novel alternative to classify tissues from T 1 and T 2 relaxation times for prostate MRI. MAGMA 2016;29:777-788 
  20. de Bazelaire CM, Duhamel GD, Rofsky NM, Alsop DC. MR imaging relaxation times of abdominal and pelvic tissues measured in vivo at 3.0 T: preliminary results. Radiology 2004;230:652-659