European Radiology

, Volume 22, Issue 3, pp 703–709

What is the optimal b value in diffusion-weighted MR imaging to depict prostate cancer at 3T?

Urogenital

Abstract

Objective

To determine an optimal b value to visualise prostate cancer using diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging at 3 T.

Methods

Forty one patients with biopsy proven prostate cancer underwent 3 T diffusion-weighted MRI performed with 5 b values (0, 1,000, 1,500, 2,000, 2,500 s/mm2) using a 16-channel coil. Best lesion visibility, the central gland-lesion (CG-L) and the peripheral zone-lesion (PZ-L) contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) were compared between different b value images, apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) were measured. In a subset of 29 patients a high resolution b1,500 s/mm2diffusion-weighted sequence was additionally assessed.

Results

The b = 1,500 s/mm2 and b = 2,000 s/mm2 images provided the best lesion visibility respectively in 27/41 and in 10/41patients. The highest CG-L and PZ-L CNR were obtained with b = 1,500 s/mm2 (P < 0.0001). The mean ADC value calculated from 0 to 1,500 s/mm2 b values in cancer lesions (ADC = 736 ± 173 10−6 mm2/s) was statistically significantly lower than in the peripheral zone (ADC = 1,338 ± 256 10−6 mm2/s, P < 0.0001) and in the central gland (ADC = 1,270 ± 239 10−6 mm2/s, P < 0.0001). The high resolution diffusion sequence was judged of better lesion visibility than (17/29) or equivalent to (6/29) the best images from the 5b sequence.

Conclusion

At 3 T, prostate cancer lesions are best depicted with b = 1,500 s/mm2 and b = 2,000 s/mm2 images, b = 1,500 s/mm2 high-resolution diffusion images improve the image quality and contrast.

Key Points

Multiple b ≥ 1,000 s/mm23 T-DW Magnetic Resonance Imaging provides excellent prostate cancer depiction.

Prostate DWI and ADC maps are attainable at 3 T without endorectal coil.

Prostate cancer depiction is improved on high resolution b 1,500 s/mm23 T-DWI.

Keywords

Prostate cancer Magnetic resonance imaging Diffusion High b value High field MRI 

References

  1. 1.
    Issa B (2002) In vivo measurement of the apparent diffusion coefficient in normal and malignant prostatic tissues using echo-planar imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 6:196–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sato C, Naganawa S, Nakamura T, Kumada H, Miura S, Takizawa O, Ishigaki T (2005) Differentiation of noncancerous tissue and cancer lesions by apparent diffusion coefficient values in transition and peripheral zones of the prostate. J Magn Reson Imaging 21:258–262PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Miao H, Fukatsu H, Ishigaki T (2007) Prostate cancer detection with 3-T MRI: comparison of diffusion-weighted and T2-weighted imaging. Eur J Radiol 61:297–302PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kim CK, Park BK, Lee HM, Kwon GY (2007) Value of diffusion-weighted imaging for the prediction of prostate cancer location at 3 T using a phased-array coil: preliminary results. Invest Radiol 42:842–847PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kim CK, Park BK, Kim B (2010) Diffusion-weighted MRI at 3 T for the evaluation of prostate cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 194:1461–1469PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tan CH, Wang J, Kundra V (2011) Diffusion weighted imaging in prostate cancer. Eur Radiol 21:593–603PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Turkbey B, Shah VP, Pang Y, Bernardo M, Xu S, Kruecker J, Locklin J, Baccala AA Jr, Rastinehad AR, Merino MJ, Shih JH, Wood BJ, Pinto PA, Choyke PL (2011) Is apparent diffusion coefficient associated with clinical risk scores for prostate cancers that are visible on 3-T MR images? Radiology 258:488–495PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hambrock T, Somford DM, Huisman HJ, van Oort IM, Witjes JA, Hulsbergen-vande 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 259:453–461Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Park SY, Kim CK, Park BK, Lee HM, Lee KS (2011) Prediction of biochemical recurrence following radical prostatectomy in men with prostate cancer by diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging: initial results. Eur Radiol 21:1111–1118PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kitajima K, Kaji Y, Kuroda K, Sugimura K (2008) High b-value diffusion-weighted imaging in normal and malignant peripheral zone tissue of the prostate: effect of signal-to-noise ratio. Magn Reson Med Sci 7:93–99PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kim CK, Park BK, Kim B (2010) High-b-value diffusion-weighted imaging at 3 T to detect prostate cancer: comparisons between b values of 1,000 and 2,000 s/mm2. AJR Am J Roentgenol 194:W33–W37PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Katahira K, Takahara T, Kwee TC, Oda S, Suzuki Y, Morishita S, Kitani K, Hamada Y, Kitaoka M, Yamashita Y (2011) Ultra-high-b-value diffusion-weighted MR imaging for the detection of prostate cancer: evaluation in 201 cases with histopathological correlation. Eur Radiol 21:188–196PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Willinek WA, Gieseke J, Kukuk GM, Nelles M, König R, Morakkabati-Spitz N, Träber F, Thomas D, Kuhl CK, Schild HH (2010) Dual-source parallel radiofrequency excitation body MR imaging compared with standard MR imaging at 3.0 T: initial clinical experience. Radiology 256:966–975PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Constantinides C, Atalar E, McVeigh ER (1997) Signal-to-Noise Measurements in Magnitude Images from NMR Phased Arrays. Magn Reson Med 38:852–857, Erratum in: Magn Reson Med. 2004 52(1):21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rosenkrantz AB, Kong X, Niver BE, Berkman DS, Melamed J, Babb JS, Taneja SS (2011) Prostate cancer: comparison of tumor visibility on trace diffusion-weighted images and the apparent diffusion coefficient map. AJR Am J Roentgenol 196:123–129PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Heijmink SW, Fütterer JJ, Hambrock T, Takahashi S, Scheenen TW, Huisman HJ, Hulsbergen-Van de Kaa CA, Knipscheer BC, Kiemeney LA, Witjes JA, Barentsz JO (2007) Prostate cancer: body-array versus endorectal coil MR imaging at 3 T–comparison of image quality, localization, and staging performance. Radiology 244:184–195PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gibbs P, Pickles MD, Turnbull LW (2007) Repeatability of echo-planar-based diffusion measurements of the human prostate at 3 T. Magn Reson Imaging 25:1423–1429PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lim HK, Kim JK, Kim KA, Cho KS (2009) Prostate cancer: apparent diffusion coefficient map with T2-weighted images for detection–a multireader study. Radiology 250:145–151PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kwee T, Takahara T, Niwa T, Ivancevic M, Herigault G, Van Cauteren M, Luijten P (2009) Influence of cardiac motion on Diffusion-Weighted MR Imaging of the Liver. MAGMA 22:319–325PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dietrich O, Raya JG, Reeder SB, Reiser MF, Schoenberg SO (2007) Measurement of signal-to-noise ratios in MR images: influence of multichannel coils, parallel imaging, and reconstruction filters. J Magn Reson Imaging 26:375–385PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Reeder SB, Wintersperger BJ, Dietrich O, Lanz T, Greiser A, Reiser MF, Glazer GM, Schoenberg SO (2005) Practical approaches to the evaluation of signal-to-noise ratio performance with parallel imaging: application with cardiac imaging and a 32-channel cardiac coil. Magn Reson Med 54:748–754PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pruessmann KP, Weiger M, Scheidegger MB, Boesiger P (1999) SENSE: sensitivity encoding for fast MRI. Magn Reson Med 42:952–962PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Resonance Magnetique, Hôpital ErasmeUniversité Libre de BruxellesBruxellesBelgium

Personalised recommendations