Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

MR safety considerations for patients undergoing prostate MRI

  • Special Section: Prostate cancer
  • Published:
Abdominal Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Over the past decade, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of patients undergoing prostate MRI scans. Patients presenting for prostate MRI are an ageing population and may present with a variety of passive or active implants and devices. These implants and devices can be MR safe or MR conditional or MR unsafe. Patients with certain MR-conditional active implants and devices can safely obtain prostate MRI in a specified MR environment within specific MR imaging parameters. Prostate MRI and PET-MRI in patients with passive implants such as hip prostheses, fiducial markers for SBRT, brachytherapy seeds and prostatectomy bed clips have unique concerns for image optimization that can cause geometric distortion of the diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) sequence. We discuss strategies to overcome these susceptibility artifacts. Prostate MRI in patients with MR conditional active implants such as cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) also require modification of imaging parameters and magnet strength. In this setting, a diagnostic quality prostate MRI can be performed at a lower magnet strength (1.5 T) along with modification of imaging parameters to ensure patient safety. Imaging strategies to minimize susceptibility artifact and decrease the specific absorption rate (SAR) in both settings are described. Knowledge of MR safety considerations and imaging strategies specific to prostate MRI and PET-MRI in patients with implants and devices is essential to ensure diagnostic-quality MR images and patient safety.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Gupta, R.T., et al., PI-RADS: Past, present, and future. J Magn Reson Imaging, 2019.

  2. Weinreb, J.C., et al., PI-RADS Prostate Imaging - Reporting and Data System: 2015, Version 2. Eur Urol, 2016. 69(1): p. 16-40.

  3. Czarniecki, M., et al., Role of PROPELLER-DWI of the prostate in reducing distortion and artefact from total hip replacement metalwork. Eur J Radiol, 2018. 102: p. 213-219.

  4. Tanaka, T., et al., Safety and Image Quality of 1.5-T Endorectal Coil Multiparametric MRI of the Prostate or Prostatectomy Fossa for Patients With Pacemaker or Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 219. 212(4): p. 815-822.

  5. Ullrich, T., et al., Magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate at 1.5 versus 3.0T: A prospective comparison study of image quality. Eur J Radiol, 2017. 90: p. 192-197.

  6. Shellock, F.G., T.O. Woods, and J.V. Crues, 3rd, MR labeling information for implants and devices: explanation of terminology. Radiology, 2009. 253(1): p. 26-30.

  7. Shellock, F.G. and A. Spinazzi, MRI safety update 2008: part 2, screening patients for MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2008. 191(4): p. 1140-9.

  8. Lowe, G., R.P. Smith, and R.A. Costabile, A catalog of magnetic resonance imaging compatibility of penile prostheses. J Sex Med, 2012. 9(5): p. 1482-7.

  9. Panych, L.P. and B. Madore, The physics of MRI safety. J Magn Reson Imaging, 2018. 47(1): p. 28-43.

  10. Shellock, F.G. and J.V. Crues, MR procedures: biologic effects, safety, and patient care. Radiology, 2004. 232(3): p. 635-52.

  11. Graf, H., G. Steidle, and F. Schick, Heating of metallic implants and instruments induced by gradient switching in a 1.5-Tesla whole-body unit. J Magn Reson Imaging, 2007. 26(5): p. 1328-33.

  12. ACR Manual on MR Safety version 1.0 2020; https://www.acr.org/-/media/ACR/Files/Radiology-Safety/MR-Safety/Manual-on-MR-Safety.pdf Accessed August 9, 2020.

  13. Dedini, R.D., et al., MRI issues for ballistic objects: information obtained at 1.5-, 3- and 7-Tesla. Spine J, 2013. 13(7): p. 815-22.

  14. Maradit Kremers, H., et al., Prevalence of Total Hip and Knee Replacement in the United States. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 2015. 97(17): p. 1386-97.

  15. Talbot, B.S. and E.P. Weinberg, MR Imaging with Metal-suppression Sequences for Evaluation of Total Joint Arthroplasty. Radiographics, 2016. 36(1): p. 209-25.

  16. Zhuo, J. and R.P. Gullapalli, AAPM/RSNA physics tutorial for residents: MR artifacts, safety, and quality control. Radiographics, 2006. 26(1): p. 275-97.

  17. Engels, R.R.M., et al., Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging for the Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: What Urologists Need to Know. Part 1: Acquisition. Eur Urol, 2020. 77(4): p. 457-468.

  18. Fusco, R., et al., A systematic review on multiparametric MR imaging in prostate cancer detection. Infect Agent Cancer, 2017. 12: p. 57.

  19. Starobinets, O., et al., Practical aspects of prostate MRI: hardware and software considerations, protocols, and patient preparation. Abdom Radiol (NY), 2016. 41(5): p. 817-30.

  20. Rosenkrantz, A.B. and S.S. Taneja, Use of Reduced Field-of-View Acquisition to Improve Prostate Cancer Visualization on Diffusion-Weighted Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Presence of Hip Implants: Report of 2 Cases. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol, 2018. 47(2): p. 125-127.

  21. Zand, K.R., et al., Artifacts and pitfalls in MR imaging of the pelvis. J Magn Reson Imaging, 2007. 26(3): p. 480-97.

  22. Kudura, K., et al., Metal artifact reduction in 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/MRI for prostate cancer patients with hip joint replacement using multiacquisition variable-resonance image combination. European Journal of Hybrid Imaging, 2020. 4(1).

  23. Oppenheimer, D.C., et al., Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Recurrent Prostate Cancer. J Clin Imaging Sci, 2016. 6: p. 18.

  24. Gaur, S. and B. Turkbey, Prostate MR Imaging for Posttreatment Evaluation and Recurrence. Radiol Clin North Am, 2018. 56(2): p. 263-275.

  25. Blanchard, P., C. Menard, and S.J. Frank, Clinical use of magnetic resonance imaging across the prostate brachytherapy workflow. Brachytherapy, 2017. 16(4): p. 734-742.

  26. Holmes, O.E., et al., Reducing errors in prostate tracking with an improved fiducial implantation protocol for CyberKnife based stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT). J Radiosurg SBRT, 2018. 5(3): p. 217-227.

  27. Maspero, M., et al., Evaluation of gold fiducial marker manual localisation for magnetic resonance-only prostate radiotherapy. Radiat Oncol, 2018. 13(1): p. 105.

  28. Safety, A.C.R.C.o.M., et al., ACR guidance document on MR safe practices: Updates and critical information 2019. J Magn Reson Imaging, 2020. 51(2): p. 331-338.

  29. Levine, G.N., et al., Safety of magnetic resonance imaging in patients with cardiovascular devices: an American Heart Association scientific statement from the Committee on Diagnostic and Interventional Cardiac Catheterization, Council on Clinical Cardiology, and the Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention: endorsed by the American College of Cardiology Foundation, the North American Society for Cardiac Imaging, and the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance. Circulation, 2007. 116(24): p. 2878-91.

  30. Shellock, F.G. and S. Valencerina, Septal repair implants: evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging safety at 3 T. Magn Reson Imaging, 2005. 23(10): p. 1021-5.

  31. Tsai, L.L., et al., A Practical Guide to MR Imaging Safety: What Radiologists Need to Know. Radiographics, 2015. 35(6): p. 1722-37.

  32. Kalb, B., et al., MRI of patients with implanted cardiac devices. J Magn Reson Imaging, 2018. 47(3): p. 595-603.

  33. Indik, J.H., et al., 2017 HRS expert consensus statement on magnetic resonance imaging and radiation exposure in patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices. Heart Rhythm, 2017. 14(7): p. e97-e153.

  34. Naehle, C.P., et al., Safety of brain 3-T MR imaging with transmit-receive head coil in patients with cardiac pacemakers: pilot prospective study with 51 examinations. Radiology, 2008. 249(3): p. 991-1001.

  35. Gimbel, J.R., Magnetic resonance imaging of implantable cardiac rhythm devices at 3.0 tesla. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol, 2008. 31(7): p. 795-801.

  36. Russo, R.J., et al., Assessing the Risks Associated with MRI in Patients with a Pacemaker or Defibrillator. N Engl J Med, 2017. 376(8): p. 755-764.

  37. Safety Concerns with Implantable Infusion Pumps in the Magnetic Resonance (MR) Environment: FDA Safety Communication, Date issued: January 11, 2017; https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/safety-communications/safety-concerns-implantable-infusion-pumps-magnetic-resonance-mr-environment-fda-safety Accessed August 11, 2020.

  38. Rosenkrantz, A.B., et al., T2-weighted prostate MRI at 7 Tesla using a simplified external transmit-receive coil array: correlation with radical prostatectomy findings in two prostate cancer patients. J Magn Reson Imaging, 2015. 41(1): p. 226-32.

Download references

Acknowledgement

We thank Virginia Mohlere, ELS, for editorial assistance.

Funding

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Imaging, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, 6431 Fannin, MSB2.130B, Houston, TX, 77030, USA

    Varaha S. Tammisetti

Authors
  1. Varaha S. Tammisetti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Varaha S. Tammisetti.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tammisetti, V.S. MR safety considerations for patients undergoing prostate MRI. Abdom Radiol 45, 4097–4108 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-020-02730-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-020-02730-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation