Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Clinical application of single-shot echo-planar diffusion-weighted imaging with compressed SENSE in prostate MRI at 3T: preliminary experience

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Magnetic Resonance Materials in Physics, Biology and Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

Image quality (IQ) of diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) with single-shot echo-planar imaging (ssEPI) suffers from low signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) in high b-value acquisitions. Compressed SENSE (C-SENSE), which combines SENSE with compressed sensing, enables SNR to be improved by reducing noise. The aim of this study was to compare IQ and prostate cancer (PC) detectability between DWI with ssEPI using SENSE (EPIS) and using C-SENSE (EPICS).

Materials and methods

Twenty-five patients with pathologically proven PC underwent multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging at 3T. DW images acquired with EPIS and EPICS were assessed for the following: lesion conspicuity (LC), SNR, contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), mean and standard deviation (SD) of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) of lesion (lADCm and lADCsd), coefficient of variation of lesion ADC (lADCcv), and mean ADC of benign prostate (bADCm).

Results

LC were comparable between EPIS and EPICS (p > 0.050), and SNR and CNR were significantly higher in EPICS than EPIS (p = 0.001 and p < 0.001). In both EPIS and EPICS, lADCm was significantly lower than bADCm (p < 0.001). In addition, lADCcv was significantly lower in EPICS than in EPIS (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Compared with EPIS, EPICS has improved IQ and comparable diagnostic performance in PC.

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
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hoeks CM, Barentsz JO, Hambrock T, Yakar D, Somford DM, Heijmink SW, Scheenen TW, Vos PC, Huisman H, van Oort IM, Witjes JA, Heerschap A, Fütterer JJ (2011) Prostate cancer: multiparametric MR imaging for detection, localization, and staging. Radiology 261(1):46–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, Cornud F, Haider MA, Macura KJ, Margolis D, Schnall MD, Shtern F, Tempany CM, Thoeny HC, Verma S (2016) PI-RADS prostate imaging—reporting and data system: 2015, Version 2. Eur Urol 69(1):16–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Turkbey B, Rosenkrantz AB, Haider MA, Padhani AR, Villeirs G, Macura KJ, Tempany CM, Choyke PL, Cornud F, Margolis DJ, Thoeny HC, Verma S, Barentsz J, Weinreb JC (2019) Prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2.1: 2019 Update of prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2. Eur Urol 76(3):340–351

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Le Bihan D (2013) Apparent diffusion coefficient and beyond: what diffusion MR imaging can tell us about tissue structure. Radiology 268(2):318–322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Tamada T, Prabhu V, Li J, Babb JS, Taneja SS, Rosenkrantz AB (2017) Prostate cancer: diffusion-weighted mr imaging for detection and assessment of aggressiveness-comparison between conventional and Kurtosis models. Radiology 284(1):100–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Chong Y, Kim CK, Park SY, Park BK, Kwon GY, Park JJ (2014) Value of diffusion-weighted imaging at 3 T for prediction of extracapsular extension in patients with prostate cancer: a preliminary study. Am J Roentgenol 202(4):772–777

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Geerts-Ossevoort L, de Weerdt E, Duijndam A, van IJperen G, Peeters H, Doneva M, Nijenhuis M, Huang A (2018) Compressed SENSE. Speed done right. Every time. Philips Field Strength Magazine pp.6619.

  8. Pruessmann KP, Weiger M, Scheidegger MB, Boesiger P (1999) SENSE: Sensitivity encoding for fast MRI. Magn Reson Med 42(5):952–962

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Lustig M, Donoho D, Pauly JM (2007) Sparse MRI: the application of compressed sensing for rapid MR imaging. Magn Reson Med 58(6):1182–1195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Morimoto D, Hyodo T, Kamata K, Kadoba T, Itoh M, Fukushima H, Chiba Y, Takenaka M, Mochizuki T, Ueda Y, Miyagoshi K, Kudo M, Ishii K (2020) Navigator-triggered and breath-hold 3D MRCP using compressed sensing: image quality and method selection factor assessment. Abdom Radiol 45(10):3081–3091

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Iuga AI, Abdullayev N, Weiss K, Haneder S, Brüggemann-Bratke L, Maintz D, Rau R, Bratke G (2020) Accelerated MRI of the knee. Quality and efficiency of compressed sensing. Eur J Radiol 132:109273

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Kaga T, Noda Y, Mori T, Kawai N, Takano H, Kajita K, Yoneyama M, Akamine Y, Kato H, Hyodo F, Matsuo M (2021) Diffusion-weighted imaging of the abdomen using echo planar imaging with compressed SENSE: feasibility, image quality, and ADC value evaluation. Eur J Radiol 142:109889

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Sprenger P, Morita K, Nakaura T, Yoneyama M, Zhang S, Bode M, Kuhl CK, Kraemer NA (2020) Body Diffusion MR Imaging with compressed SENSE based on single-shot EPI at 3T and 1.5T: technical feasibility and initial clinical experience. Proceedings of the 28th annual meeting of ISMRM, 2611.

  14. Yoneyama M, Morita K, Peeters JM, Nakaura T, Van Cauteren M (2019) Noise reduction in prostate single-shot DW-EPI utilizing compressed SENSE framework. Proceedings of the 27th annual meeting of ISMRM, Montreal, 1634.

  15. Tamada T, Sone T, Higashi H, Jo Y, Yamamoto A, Kanki A, Ito K (2011) Prostate cancer detection in patients with total serum prostate-specific antigen levels of 4–10 ng/mL: diagnostic efficacy of diffusion-weighted imaging, dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI, and T2-weighted imaging. Am J Roentgenol 197(3):664–670

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB, Delahunt B, Srigley JR, Humphrey PA, Committee Grading (2016) The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: definition of grading patterns and proposal fora new grading system. Am J Surg Pathol 40(2):244–252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Tamada T, Sone T, Jo Y, Yamamoto A, Ito K (2014) Diffusion-weighted MRI and its role in prostate cancer. NMR Biomed 27(1):25–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Valerio M, Cerantola Y, Eggener SE, Lepor H, Polascik TJ, Villers A, Emberton M (2017) New and established technology in focal ablation of the prostate: a systematic review. Eur Urol 71(1):17–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Ganzer R, Arthanareeswaran VKA, Ahmed HU, Cestari A, Rischmann P, Salomon G, Teber D, Liatsikos E, Stolzenburg JU, Barret E (2018) Which technology to select for primary focal treatment of prostate cancer?-European Section of Urotechnology (ESUT) position statement. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 21(2):175–186

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Panebianco V, Barchetti F, Sciarra A, Musio D, Forte V, Gentile V, Tombolini V, Catalano C (2013) Prostate cancer recurrence after radical prostatectomy: the role of 3-T diffusion imaging in multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging. Eur Radiol 23(6):1745–1752

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Kitajima K, Hartman RP, Froemming AT, Hagen CE, Takahashi N, Kawashima A (2015) Detection of local recurrence of prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy using endorectal coil MRI at 3 T: addition of DWI and dynamic contrast enhancement to T2-weighted MRI. Am J Roentgenol 205(4):807–816

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Lee CH, Vellayappan B, Tan CH (2022) Comparison of diagnostic performance and inter-reader agreement between PI-RADS v2.1 and PI-RADS v2: systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Radiol. 95(1131):20210509

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Kim W, Kim CK, Park JJ, Kim M, Kim JH (2017) Evaluation of extracapsular extension in prostate cancer using qualitative and quantitative multiparametric MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 45(6):1760–1770

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Woo S, Cho JY, Kim SY, Kim SH (2015) Extracapsular extension in prostate cancer: added value of diffusion-weighted MRI in patients with equivocal findings on T2-weighted imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 204(2):W168-175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Hambrock T, Somford DM, Huisman HJ, van Oort IM, Witjes JA, Hulsbergen-van de Kaa CA, Scheenen T, Barentsz JO (2011) Relationship between apparent diffusion coefficients at 3.0-T MR imaging and Gleason grade in peripheral zone prostate cancer. Radiology 259(2):453–461

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Tamada T, Kanomata N, Sone T, Jo Y, Miyaji Y, Higashi H, Yamamoto A, Ito K (2014) High b value (2000 s/mm2) diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer at 3 Tesla: comparison with 1000 s/mm2 for tumor conspicuity and discrimination of aggressiveness. PLoS One 9(5):e96619

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Donati OF, Mazaheri Y, Afaq A, Vargas HA, Zheng J, Moskowitz CS, Hricak H, Akin O (2014) Prostate cancer aggressiveness: assessment with whole-lesion histogram analysis of the apparent diffusion coefficient. Radiology 271(1):143–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Kim E, Kim CK, Kim HS, Jang DP, Kim IY, Hwang J (2020) Histogram analysis from stretched exponential model on diffusion-weighted imaging: evaluation of clinically significant prostate cancer. Br J Radiol 93(1106):20190757

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Hectors SJ, Semaan S, Song C, Lewis S, Haines GK, Tewari A, Rastinehad AR, Taouli B (2018) Advanced diffusion-weighted imaging modeling for prostate cancer characterization: correlation with quantitative histopathologic tumor tissue composition-A hypothesis-generating study. Radiology 286(3):918–928

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Kawasaki Medical School, 577 Matsushima, Kurashiki-city, Okayama, 701-0192, Japan

    Tsutomu Tamada, Ayumu Kido, Hiroyasu Sanai, Kentaro Ono, Akira Yamamoto & Teruki Sone

  2. Philips Japan, Konan 2-13-37, Minato-ku, Tokyo, 108-8507, Japan

    Yu Ueda & Masami Yoneyama

  3. Department of Radiology, Radiolonet Tokai, Asaoka-cho 3-86-2, Chikusa-ku, Nagoya-city , Aichi, 464-0811, Japan

    Mitsuru Takeuchi

Authors
  1. Tsutomu Tamada
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yu Ueda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ayumu Kido
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Masami Yoneyama
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Mitsuru Takeuchi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Hiroyasu Sanai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Kentaro Ono
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Akira Yamamoto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Teruki Sone
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

TT, UY: study conception and design, analysis and interpretation of data, and drafting of manuscript. KA: analysis and interpretation of data. YM: study conception and design. TM: analysis and interpretation of data. SH: acquisition of data. OK: acquisition of data. YA: critical revision. ST: analysis and interpretation of data, critical revision.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tsutomu Tamada.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Ethical standards

Our Institutional Review Board approved this retrospective study. The requirement for written informed consent was waived.

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

Tamada, T., Ueda, Y., Kido, A. et al. Clinical application of single-shot echo-planar diffusion-weighted imaging with compressed SENSE in prostate MRI at 3T: preliminary experience. Magn Reson Mater Phy 35, 549–556 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10334-022-01010-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10334-022-01010-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation