Comparison of image quality and patient discomfort in prostate MRI: pelvic phased array coil vs. endorectal coil

Strategies for improving image quality in prostate MRI

Prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) stands as the cornerstone in diagnosing prostate cancer (PCa), offering superior detection capabilities while minimizing unnecessary biopsies. Despite its critical role, global disparities in MRI diagnostic performance persist, stemming from variations in image quality and radiologist expertise. This manuscript reviews the challenges and strategies for enhancing image quality in prostate MRI, spanning patient preparation, MRI unit optimization, and radiology team engagement. Quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC) processes are pivotal, emphasizing standardized protocols, meticulous patient evaluation, MRI unit workflow, and radiology team performance. Additionally, artificial intelligence (AI) advancements offer promising avenues for improving image quality and reducing acquisition times. The Prostate-Imaging Quality (PI-QUAL) scoring system emerges as a valuable tool for assessing MRI image quality. A comprehensive approach addressing technical, procedural, and interpretative aspects is essential to ensure consistent and reliable prostate MRI outcomes.

Picture Perfect: The Status of Image Quality in Prostate MRI

Magnetic resonance imaging is the gold standard imaging modality for the diagnosis of prostate cancer (PCa). Image quality is a fundamental prerequisite for the ability to detect clinically significant disease. In this critical review, we separate the issue of image quality into quality improvement and quality assessment. Beginning with the evolution of technical recommendations for scan acquisition, we investigate the role of patient preparation, scanner factors, and more advanced sequences, including those featuring Artificial Intelligence (AI), in determining image quality. As means of quality appraisal, the published literature on scoring systems (including the Prostate Imaging Quality score), is evaluated. Finally, the application of AI and teaching courses as ways to facilitate quality assessment are discussed, encouraging the implementation of future image quality initiatives along the PCa diagnostic and monitoring pathway. EVIDENCE LEVEL: 3 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 3.

Prostate Health Index (PHI) as a triage tool for reducing unnecessary magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in patients at risk of prostate cancer

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study is to assess the usefulness of the Prostate Health Index (PHI) as a triage tool for selecting patients at risk of prostate cancer (PCa) who should undergo multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging (mpMRI).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We enrolled 204 patients with suspected PCa. For each patient, a blood sample was collected before mpMRI to measure PHI. Findings on mpMRI were assessed according to the Prostate Imaging Reporting & Data System version 2.0 (PI-RADSv2) category scale.

RESULTS

According to PI-RADSv2, patients were classified into two groups: PI-RADS < 3 (48 %) and ≥ 3 (52 %). PHI showed the best performance for predicting PI-RADS ≥ 3 [AUC: 0,747 (0,679-0,815), 0,680(0,607-0,754), and 0,613 (0,535-0,690) for PHI, PSA ratio, and total PSA, respectively]. The best PHI cut-off was 30, with a sensitivity of 90%. At the univariate logistic regression, total PSA (p = 0.007), PSA ratio (p = 0.001), [-2]proPSA (p = 0.019) and PHI (p < 0.001) were associated with PI-RADS ≥ 3; however, at the multivariate analysis, only PHI (p < 0.001) was found to be an independent predictor of PI-RADS ≥ 3.

CONCLUSION

PHI could represent a reliable noninvasive tool for selecting patients to undergo mpMRI.

Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Study in the mpMRI of the Prostate-Unnecessary or Underutilised? A Narrative Review

The aim of this review is to summarise recent scientific literature regarding the clinical use of DCE-MRI as a component of multiparametric resonance imaging of the prostate. This review presents the principles of DCE-MRI acquisition and analysis, the current role of DCE-MRI in clinical practice with special regard to its role in presently available categorisation systems, and an overview of the advantages and disadvantages of DCE-MRI described in the current literature. DCE-MRI is an important functional sequence that requires intravenous administration of a gadolinium-based contrast agent and gives information regarding the vascularity and capillary permeability of the lesion. Although numerous studies have confirmed that DCE-MRI has great potential in the diagnosis and monitoring of prostate cancer, its role is still inadequate in the PI-RADS categorisation. Moreover, there have been numerous scientific discussions about abandoning the intravenous application of gadolinium-based contrast as a routine part of MRI examination of the prostate. In this review, we summarised the recent literature on the advantages and disadvantages of DCE-MRI, focusing on an overview of currently available data on bpMRI and mpMRI, as well as on studies providing information on the potential better usability of DCE-MRI in improving the sensitivity and specificity of mpMRI examinations of the prostate.

Prostate MR image quality of apparent diffusion coefficient maps versus fractional intracellular volume maps from VERDICT MRI using the PI-QUAL score and a dedicated Likert scale for artefacts

PURPOSE

This study aimed to assess the image quality of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) maps derived from conventional diffusion-weighted MRI and fractional intracellular volume maps (FIC) from VERDICT MRI (Vascular, Extracellular, Restricted Diffusion for Cytometry in Tumours) in patients from the INNOVATE trial. The inter-reader agreement was also assessed.

METHODS

Two readers analysed both ADC and FIC maps from 57 patients enrolled in the INNOVATE prospective trial. Image quality was assessed using the Prostate Imaging Quality (PI-QUAL) score and a subjective image quality Likert score (Likert-IQ). The image quality of FIC and ADC were compared using a Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test. The inter-reader agreement was assessed with Cohen's kappa.

RESULTS

There was no statistically significant difference between the PI-QUAL score for FIC datasets compared to ADC datasets for either reader (p = 0.240 and p = 0.614). Using the Likert-IQ score, FIC image quality was higher compared to ADC (p = 0.021) as assessed by reader-1 but not for reader-2 (p = 0.663). The inter-reader agreement was 'fair' for PI-QUAL scoring of datasets with FIC maps at 0.27 (95% confidence interval; 0.08-0.46) and ADC datasets at 0.39 (95% confidence interval 0.22-0.57). For Likert scoring, the inter-reader agreement was also 'fair' for FIC maps at 0.38 (95% confidence interval; 0.10-0.65) and substantial for ADC maps at 0.62 (95% confidence interval; 0.39-0.86).

CONCLUSION

Image quality was comparable for FIC and ADC. The inter-reader agreement was similar when using PIQUAL for both FIC and ADC datasets but higher for ADC maps compared to FIC maps using the image quality Likert score.

Prostate MRI and image Quality: It is time to take stock

Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) plays a vital role in prostate cancer diagnosis and management. With the increase in use of mpMRI, obtaining the best possible quality images has become a priority. The Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) was introduced to standardize and optimize patient preparation, scanning techniques, and interpretation. However, the quality of the MRI sequences depends not only on the hardware/software and scanning parameters, but also on patient-related factors. Common patient-related factors include bowel peristalsis, rectal distension, and patient motion. There is currently no consensus regarding the best approaches to address these issues and improve the quality of mpMRI. New evidence has been accrued since the release of PI-RADS, and this review aims to explore the key strategies which aim to improve prostate MRI quality, such as imaging techniques, patient preparation methods, the new Prostate Imaging Quality (PI-QUAL) criteria, and artificial intelligence on prostate MRI quality.

Prostate MRI: Is Endorectal Coil Necessary?—A Review

To assess the necessity of endorectal coil use in 3 Tesla (T) prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), a literature review comparing the image quality and diagnostic performance with an endorectal coil (ERC) and a without endorectal coil (NERC), with a phased array coil or a wearable perineal coil (WPC), was performed. A PubMed search of 3T prostate MRI using an endorectal coil for studies published until 31 July 2021 was performed. A total of 14 studies comparing 3T prostate MRI with and without endorectal coil use were identified. The quality scores and diagnostic performances were recorded for each study. In total, five studies compared image quality; five studies compared quality and performance; and four studies compared performance of detection, size of detected lesions, accuracy of cancer localization, and aggressiveness/staging. The use of an endorectal coil improved image quality with a higher overall signal to noise ratio, posterior and peripheral zone signal to noise ratio, high b-value attenuation diffusion coefficient (ADC) signal to noise ratio, and contrast to noise ratio. Endorectal coil use improved subjective image quality for anatomic detail on T2 weighted images (T2WI) and diffusion weighted images (DWI). Endorectal coil use had less motion artifact on DWI than non-endorectal coil use, but produced a higher occurrence of other artifacts on DWI. Endorectal coils had higher sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value (PPV) in the detection of overall and index lesions, as well as smaller and less aggressive lesions, missing fewer and smaller lesions than non-endorectal coils. Endorectal coils had higher sensitivity than non-endorectal coils in localizing and staging lesions. Endorectal coils improved quantitative and qualitative image quality and diagnostic performance in the detection of smaller and less aggressive cancers in 3T prostate MRI.

Prostate MRI using a rigid two-channel phased-array endorectal coil: comparison with phased array coil acquisition at 3 T

Background

To compare image quality, lesion detection and patient comfort of 3T prostate MRI using a combined rigid two-channel phased-array endorectal coil and an external phased-array coil (ERC-PAC) compared to external PAC acquisition in the same patients.

Methods

Thirty three men (mean age 65.3y) with suspected (n = 15) or biopsy-proven prostate cancer (PCa, n = 18) were prospectively enrolled in this exploratory study. 3T prostate MRI including T2-weighted imaging (T2WI) and diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) was performed using an ERC-PAC versus PAC alone, in random order. Image quality, lesion detection and characterization (biparametric PI-RADSv2.1) were evaluated by 2 independent observers. Estimated signal-to-noise ratio (eSNR) was measured in identified lesions and the peripheral zone (PZ). Patient comfort was assessed using a questionnaire. Data were compared between sequences and acquisitions. Inter/intra-observer agreement for PI-RADS scores was evaluated.

Results

Twenty four prostate lesions (22 PCa) were identified in 20/33 men. Superior image quality was found for ERC-PAC compared to PAC for T2WI for one observer (Obs.1, p < 0.03) and high b-value DWI for both observers (p < 0.05). The sensitivity of PI-RADS for lesion detection for ERC-PAC and PAC acquisitions was 79.2 and 75% for Obs.1, and 79.1 and 66.7%, for Obs.2, without significant difference for each observer (McNemar p-values ≥0.08). Inter−/intra-observer agreement for PI-RADS scores was moderate-to-substantial (kappa = 0.52–0.84). Higher eSNR was observed for lesions and PZ for T2WI and PZ for DWI using ERC-PAC (p < 0.013). Most patients (21/33) reported discomfort at ERC insertion.

Conclusion

Despite improved image quality and eSNR using the rigid ERC-PAC combination, no significant improvement in lesion detection was observed, therefore not supporting the routine use of ERC for prostate MRI.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40644-022-00453-7.

Influence of Enema and Dietary Restrictions on Prostate MR Image Quality: A Multireader Study

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effect of enema and dietary restrictions on prostate MR image quality metrics and to assess inter-reader agreement for these metrics.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 195 men divided into groups based on their compliance with preparation instructions before prostate MRI (Enema + Diet, n = 98; Enema, n = 42; Diet, n = 35; Control [no compliance], n = 20). Four readers independently assessed six image quality metrics on a 5-point scale. Between-group comparisons were made using Wilcoxon rank sum test. Inter-reader agreement was calculated using Fleiss' kappa.

RESULTS

Compared with the Control group, image quality with respect to rectal stool/gas, distortion of diffusion-weighted images, overall image quality, and confidence in assessment was higher in the Enema + Diet, Enema, and Diet groups (p  < 0.05 for all comparisons). The Enema + Diet and Enema groups had significantly higher scores than the Diet group for rectal stool/gas (p < 0.001 and 0.005, respectively). The Enema + Diet and Diet groups had higher scores than the Control group for rectal peristalsis (p = 0.027 and 0.009, respectively), but there were no significant differences in motion artifacts on T2-weighted images. Agreement among readers was fair, with kappa values ranging from 0.25 to 0.37.

CONCLUSION

Enema and dietary restriction can improve the quality of prostate MRI by decreasing rectal distension and distortion of diffusion-weighted images and by increasing reader confidence in image assessment. Inter-reader agreement using subjective criteria for analysis of MRI quality is fair.

Prostate MRI quality: a critical review of the last 5 years and the role of the PI-QUAL score

There is increasing interest in the use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) in the prostate cancer pathway. The European Association of Urology (EAU) and the British Association of Urological Surgeons (BAUS) now advise mpMRI prior to biopsy, and the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) recommendations set out the minimal technical requirements for the acquisition of mpMRI of the prostate.The widespread and swift adoption of this technique has led to variability in image quality. Suboptimal image acquisition reduces the sensitivity and specificity of mpMRI for the detection and staging of clinically significant prostate cancer.This critical review outlines the studies aimed at improving prostate MR quality that have been published over the last 5 years. These span from the use of specific MR sequences, magnets and coils to patient preparation. The rates of adherence of prostate mpMRI to technical standards in different cohorts across the world are also discussed.Finally, we discuss the first standardised scoring system (i.e., Prostate Imaging Quality, PI-QUAL) that has been created to evaluate image quality, although further iterations of this score are expected in the future.

Impact of different phased-array coils on the quality of prostate magnetic resonance images

•

Image quality is similar for different body phased-array receive coil setups.

•

An 18-channel body phased-array receive coil setup achieved good image quality.

•

60-channel body phased-array receive coil setup slightly improves SNR in T2W images.

Purpose

To evaluate the influence of body phased-array (BPA) receive coil setups on signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and image quality (IQ) in prostate MRI.

Methods

This prospective study evaluated axial T2-weighted images (T2W-TSE) and DWI of the prostate in ten healthy volunteers with 18-channel (18CH), 30-channel and 60-channel (60CH) BPA receive coil setups. SNR and ADC values were assessed in the peripheral and transition zones (TZ). Two radiologists rated IQ features. Differences in qualitative and quantitative image features between BPA receive coil setups were compared. After correction for multiple comparisons, p-values <0.004 for quantitative and p-values <0.017 for qualitative image analysis were considered statistically significant.

Results

Significantly higher SNR was found in T2W-TSE images in the TZ using 60CH BPA compared to 18CH BPA coil setups (15.20 ± 4.22 vs. 7.68 ± 2.37; p = 0.001). There were no significant differences between all other quantitative (T2W-TSE, p = 0.007−0.308; DWI, p = 0.024−0.574) and qualitative image features (T2W-TSE, p = 0.083–1.0; DWI, p = 0.046–1.0).

Conclusion

60CH BPA receive coil setup showed marginal SNR improvement in T2W-TSE images. Good IQ could be achieved with 18CH BPA coil setups.

Quality Comparison of 3 Tesla multiparametric MRI of the prostate using a flexible surface receiver coil versus conventional surface coil plus endorectal coil setup

PURPOSE

To subjectively and quantitatively compare the quality of 3 Tesla magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate acquired with a novel flexible surface coil (FSC) and with a conventional endorectal coil (ERC).

METHODS

Six radiologists independently reviewed 200 pairs of axial, high-resolution T2-weighted and diffusion-weighted image data sets, each containing one examination acquired with the FSC and one with the ERC, respectively. Readers selected their preferred examination from each pair and assessed every single examination using six quality criteria on 4-point scales. Signal-to-noise ratios were measured and compared.

RESULTS

Two readers preferred FSC acquisition (36.5-45%) over ERC acquisition (13.5-15%) for both sequences combined, and four readers preferred ERC acquisition (41-46%). Analysis of pooled responses for both sequences from all readers shows no significant preference for FSC or ERC. Analysis of the individual sequences revealed a pooled preference for the FSC in T2WI (38.7% vs 17.8%) and for the ERC in DWI (50.9% vs 19.6%). Patients' weight was the only weak predictor of a preference for the ERC acquisition (p = 0.04). SNR and CNR were significantly higher in the ERC acquisitions (p<0.001) except CNR differentiating tumor lesions from benign prostate (p=0.1).

CONCLUSION

Although readers have strong individual preferences, comparable subjective image quality can be obtained for prostate MRI with an ERC and the novel FSC. ERC imaging might be particularly valuable for sequences with inherently lower SNR as DWI and larger patients whereas the FSC is generally preferred in T2WI. FSC imaging generates a lower SNR than with an ERC.

Doctor, a patient is on the phone asking about the endorectal coil!

The question referred to in the title of this article is a relatively common situation when performing prostate MRI in some healthcare settings. Moreover, the answer is not always straightforward. The decisions on type of receiver coil for prostate MRI and whether or not an endorectal coil (ERC) should be used is based on several factors. These relate to the patient (e.g., body habitus, presence of metallic devices in the pelvis), the focus of the exam (diagnosis, staging, recurrence), and characteristics of the MRI system (e.g., magnetic field strength and hardware components including coil design and number of elements/channels available in the surface coil). Historically, the combined use of an ERC and a surface coil was the optimal combination for maximizing the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), particularly for low-strength magnetic fields (1.5T). However, there are several disadvantages associated with the use of an ERC, and several studies have advocated equivalent clinical performance of modern MRI systems for diagnosis and staging of prostate cancer (PCa), either with ERC or surface alone. Accordingly, there is a wide variation in the precise imaging technique across institutions. This article focuses on the most relevant aspects of the decision of whether to use an ERC for PCa MR imaging.

Manual prostate cancer segmentation in MRI: interreader agreement and volumetric correlation with transperineal template core needle biopsy

OBJECTIVES

To assess interreader agreement of manual prostate cancer lesion segmentation on multiparametric MR images (mpMRI). The secondary aim was to compare tumor volume estimates between MRI segmentation and transperineal template saturation core needle biopsy (TTSB).

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed patients who had undergone mpMRI of the prostate at our institution and who had received TTSB within 190 days of the examination. Seventy-eight cancer lesions with Gleason score of at least 3 + 4 = 7 were manually segmented in T2-weighted images by 3 radiologists and 1 medical student. Twenty lesions were also segmented in apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) and dynamic contrast enhanced (DCE) series. First, 20 volumetric similarity scores were computed to quantify interreader agreement. Second, manually segmented cancer lesion volumes were compared with TTSB-derived estimates by Bland-Altman analysis and Wilcoxon testing.

RESULTS

Interreader agreement across all readers was only moderate with mean T2 Dice score of 0.57 (95%CI 0.39-0.70), volumetric similarity coefficient of 0.74 (0.48-0.89), and Hausdorff distance of 5.23 mm (3.17-9.32 mm). Discrepancy of volume estimate between MRI and TTSB was increasing with tumor size. Discrepancy was significantly different between tumors with a Gleason score 3 + 4 vs. higher grade tumors (0.66 ml vs. 0.78 ml; p = 0.007). There were no significant differences between T2, ADC, and DCE segmentations.

CONCLUSIONS

We found at best moderate interreader agreement of manual prostate cancer segmentation in mpMRI. Additionally, our study suggests a systematic discrepancy between the tumor volume estimate by MRI segmentation and TTSB core length, especially for large and high-grade tumors.

KEY POINTS

• Manual prostate cancer segmentation in mpMRI shows moderate interreader agreement. • There are no significant differences between T2, ADC, and DCE segmentation agreements. • There is a systematic difference between volume estimates derived from biopsy and MRI.

Head-to-head comparison of prostate MRI using an endorectal coil versus a non-endorectal coil: meta-analysis of diagnostic performance in staging T3 prostate cancer

AIM

To compare the diagnostic performance of prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with an endorectal coil (ERC) to performance without an ERC using either body-array (BAC) or pelvic phased-array coil (PAC) in staging T3 prostate cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An electronic search of the PUBMED and EMBASE databases was performed until 10 October 2018 to identify studies performing a head-to-head comparison of prostate MRI using a 1.5 or 3 T magnet with an ERC and with a BAC/PAC for staging T3 prostate cancer. Pooled sensitivity and specificity of all studies were plotted in a hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic plot. The diagnostic performance of the two techniques in staging T3 disease was evaluated using bivariate random-effects meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Eight studies comparing head-to-head prostate MRI with an ERC and with a BAC/PAC were identified of which six studies compared the diagnostic performance. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of MRI with an ERC for detecting T3a, T3b and T3a+b was 53% and 95%; 52% and 92%; 72% and 65% respectively. For MRI with a BAC/PAC these were 34%, and 95%; 45% and 94%; 70% and 66%. There was no statistical difference between an ERC and a BAC/PAC in terms of sensitivity (p=0.41) and specificity (p=0.63) for T3a. The area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve for T3a, T3b and T3a+b was 0.830, 0.901, 0.741 for an ERC and 0.790, 0.645, 0.711 for BAC, respectively.

CONCLUSION

There is no significant difference in the diagnostic performance of MRI of prostate with an ERC and with a BAC/PAC in staging T3 prostate cancer.

Retrospective study comparing MR-guided radiation therapy (MRgRT) setup strategies for prostate treatment: repositioning vs. replanning

BACKGROUND

This study compared adaptive replanning and repositioning corrections based on soft-tissue matching for prostate cancer by using the magnetic resonance-guided radiation therapy (MRgRT) system.

METHODS

A total of 19 patients with prostate cancer were selected retrospectively. Weekly magnetic resonance image (MRI) scans were acquired for 5 weeks for each patient to observe the anatomic changes during the treatment course. Initial intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plans (iIMRT) were generated for each patient with 13 coplanar ⁶⁰Co beams on a ViewRay™ system. Two techniques were applied: patient repositioning and replanning. For patient repositioning, one plan was created: soft-tissue (prostate) matching (Soft). The dose distribution was calculated for each MRI with the beam delivery parameters from the initial IMRT plan. The replanning technique was used to generate the Adaptive plan, which was the reoptimized plan for the weekly MRI. The dose-volumetric parameters of the planning target volume (PTV), bladder, and rectum were calculated for all plans. During the treatment course, the PTV, bladder, and rectum were evaluated for changes in volume and the effect on dosimetric parameters. The differences between the dose-volumetric parameters of the plans were examined through the Wilcoxon test. The initial plan was used as a baseline to compare the differences.

RESULTS

The Adaptive plan showed better target coverage during the treatment period, but the change was not significant in the Soft plan. There were significant differences in D_98%, D_95%, and D_2% in PTV between the Soft and Adaptive plans (p < 0.05) except for D_mean. There was no significant change in D_max and D_mean as the treatment progressed with all plans. All indices for the Adaptive plan stayed the same compared to those of iIMRT during the treatment course. There were significant differences in D_15%, D_25%, D_35%, and D_50% in the bladder between the Soft and Adaptive plans. The Adaptive plan showed the worse dose sparing than the Soft plan for the bladder according to each dosimetric index. In contrast to the bladder, the Adaptive plan achieved better sparing than the Soft plan during the treatment course. The significant differences were only observed in D_15% and D_35% between the Soft and Adaptive plans (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Patient repositioning based on the target volume (Soft plan) can relatively retain the target coverage for patients and the OARs remain at a clinically tolerance level during the treatment course. The Adaptive plan did not clinically improve for the dose delivered to OARs, it kept the dose delivered to the target volume constant. However, the Adaptive plan is beneficial when the organ positions and volumes change considerable during treatment.

VERDICT MRI for Prostate Cancer: Intracellular Volume Fraction versus Apparent Diffusion Coefficient

Background Biologic specificity of diffusion MRI in relation to prostate cancer aggressiveness may improve by examining separate components of the diffusion MRI signal. The Vascular, Extracellular, and Restricted Diffusion for Cytometry in Tumors (VERDICT) model estimates three distinct signal components and associates them to (a) intracellular water, (b) water in the extracellular extravascular space, and (c) water in the microvasculature. Purpose To evaluate the repeatability, image quality, and diagnostic utility of intracellular volume fraction (FIC) maps obtained with VERDICT prostate MRI and to compare those maps with apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) maps for Gleason grade differentiation. Materials and Methods Seventy men (median age, 62.2 years; range, 49.5-82.0 years) suspected of having prostate cancer or undergoing active surveillance were recruited to a prospective study between April 2016 and October 2017. All men underwent multiparametric prostate and VERDICT MRI. Forty-two of the 70 men (median age, 67.7 years; range, 50.0-82.0 years) underwent two VERDICT MRI acquisitions to assess repeatability of FIC measurements obtained with VERDICT MRI. Repeatability was measured with use of intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). The image quality of FIC and ADC maps was independently evaluated by two board-certified radiologists. Forty-two men (median age, 64.8 years; range, 49.5-79.6 years) underwent targeted biopsy, which enabled comparison of FIC and ADC metrics in the differentiation between Gleason grades. Results VERDICT MRI FIC demonstrated ICCs of 0.87-0.95. There was no significant difference between image quality of ADC and FIC maps (score, 3.1 vs 3.3, respectively; P = .90). FIC was higher in lesions with a Gleason grade of at least 3+4 compared with benign and/or Gleason grade 3+3 lesions (mean, 0.49 ± 0.17 vs 0.31 ± 0.12, respectively; P = .002). The difference in ADC between these groups did not reach statistical significance (mean, 1.42 vs 1.16 × 10-3 mm2/sec; P = .26). Conclusion Fractional intracellular volume demonstrates high repeatability and image quality and enables better differentiation of a Gleason 4 component cancer from benign and/or Gleason 3+3 histology than apparent diffusion coefficient. Published under a CC BY 4.0 license. Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Sigmund and Rosenkrantz in this issue.

Exploratory study of geometric distortion correction of prostate diffusion-weighted imaging using B0 map acquisition

BACKGROUND

Evaluation of prostate MRI relies on diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), commonly distorted by susceptibility artifacts, thereby creating a need for approaches to correct such distortion.

PURPOSE

To compare geometric distortion on prostate MRI between standard DWI and a geometric distortion correction method for DWI described as static distortion correction DWI (SDC DWI).

STUDY TYPE

Retrospective case study.

POPULATION

Thirty patients (ages 31-81 years) undergoing prostate MRI.

SEQUENCE

Geometric distortions from echo planar imaging were corrected with the SDC DWI protocol, which first acquires a B₀ -field map to estimate geometric distortions.

ASSESSMENT

Contours of the prostate were placed on axial T₂ -weighted imaging (T₂ WI) as an anatomic standard. Pixel shifts and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values were compared between prostate contours applied to the SDC DWI and standard DWI sequences. Detailed characterization of the impact of SDC DWI was performed in three representative patients.

STATISTICAL TESTS

One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) test, Spearman correlation test, and Bland-Altman plots were calculated.

RESULTS

There was significantly greater overlap of the SDC DWI prostate region of interest (ROI) with T₂ WI than standard DWI with T₂ WI (10.56 cm² ± 3.14, P < 0.05). R² of ADC values from standard DWI vs. SDC DWI in the 30 patients ranged from 0.02-0.94 (mean 0.60). A patient without susceptibility artifact demonstrated minimal pixel shift ranging from 0.6-1.3 mm and high correlation of ADC values (R² = 0.89) between SDC DWI and standard DWI. A patient with rectal gas showed greater pixel shift (range: -2.5 to -0.5 mm) and less ADC value correlation (R² = 0.69). A patient with a pelvic phlebolith adjacent to the prostate showed an even greater pixel shift (range: 10-16 mm) and decreased ADC correlation (R² = 0.21).

DATA CONCLUSION

SDC DWI appears to correct for susceptibility-related pixel shifts in the prostate compared with standard DWI, which may have value for assessing prostate lesions obscured by geometric warping. Level of Evidence 4 Technical Efficacy Stage 1 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019;50:1614-1619.

Prostate MRI using an external phased array wearable pelvic coil at 3T: comparison with an endorectal coil

PURPOSE

To evaluate T2w and DWI image quality using a wearable pelvic coil (WPC) compared with an endorectal coil (ERC).

METHODS

Twenty men consecutively presenting to our prostate cancer MRI clinic were prospectively consented to be scanned using a wearable pelvic coil then an endorectal coil and pelvic phased array coil at 3T. Eighteen patients were suitable for inclusion. Axial T2w images were obtained using the WPC and ERC, and DWI images were obtained using the WPC, ERC, and PPA. Analysis was performed in consensus by two readers with experience in prostate MRI. The readers scored the T2w images using six qualitative criteria and the DWI images using five criteria. Signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) was also measured.

RESULTS

T2w artifact severity was greater for an ERC than a WPC (p = 0.003). There was no significant difference in T2w qualititatve image quality by other measures. The distinction of zonal anatomy on DWI was superior for an ERC compared with both a WPC and a PPA (p = 0.018 and p < 0.001 respectively), and there was no significant difference in DWI image quality by other measures. SNR was significantly higher for ERC imaging for both T2w and DWI.

CONCLUSION

WPC imaging provides comparable image quality to that of an ERC, potentially reducing the need for an ERC. WPC imaging shows reduced T2w artifact severity and inferior DWI zonal anatomy distinction compared with an ERC. Imaging with a WPC produces a lower SNR than an ERC.

Diagnostic Accuracy of a MR Protocol Acquired with and without Endorectal Coil for Detection of Prostate Cancer: A Multicenter Study

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to compare diagnostic accuracy of a prostate multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) protocol for detection of prostate cancer between images acquired with and without en-dorectal coil (ERC).

Materials

This study was approved by the regional ethics committee. Between 2014 and 2015, 33 patients (median age 51.3 years; range 42.1-77.3 years) who underwent prostate-MRI at 3T scanners at 2 different institutions, acquired with (mpMRI_ERC) and without (mpMRI_PPA) ERC and who received radical prostatectomy, were included in this retrospective study. Two expert readers (R1, R2) attributed a PI-RADS version 2 score for the most suspect (i. e. index) lesion for mpMRI_PPA and mpMRI_ERC. Sensitivity and positive predictive value for detection of index lesions were assessed using 2 × 2 contingency tables. Differences between groups were tested using the McNemar test. Whole-mount histopathology served as reference standard.

Results

On a quadrant-basis cumulative sensitivity ranged between 0.61-0.67 and 0.76-0.88 for mpMRI_PPA and mpMRI_ERC protocols, respectively (p > 0.05). Cumulative positive predictive value ranged between 0.80-0.81 and 0.89-0.91 for mpMRI_PPA and mpMRI_ERC protocols, respectively. The differences were not statistically significant for R1 (p = 0.267) or R2 (p = 0.508).

Conclusion

Our results suggest that there may be no significant differences for detection of prostate cancer between images acquired with and without an ERC.

Evolution of prostate MRI: from multiparametric standard to less-is-better and different-is better strategies

Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) has become the standard of care to achieve accurate and reproducible diagnosis of prostate cancer. However, mpMRI is quite demanding in terms of technical rigour, patient's tolerability and safety, expertise in interpretation, and costs. This paper reviews the main technical strategies proposed as less-is-better solutions for clinical practice (non-contrast biparametric MRI, reduction of acquisition time, abbreviated protocols, computer-aided diagnosis systems), discussing them in the light of the available evidence and of the concurrent evolution of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS). We also summarised research results on those advanced techniques representing an alternative different-is-better line of the still ongoing evolution of prostate MRI (quantitative diffusion-weighted imaging, quantitative dynamic contrast enhancement, intravoxel incoherent motion, diffusion tensor imaging, diffusional kurtosis imaging, restriction spectrum imaging, radiomics analysis, hybrid positron emission tomography/MRI).

Evaluation of stacked resonators to enhance the performance of a surface receive-only array for prostate MRI at 3 Tesla

Prostate MRI is an important tool to diagnose and characterize cancer. High local sensitivity and good parallel imaging performance are of paramount importance for diagnostic quality and efficiency. The purpose of this work was to evaluate stacked resonators as part of a surface receiver array for prostate MRI at 3 Tesla. A base array of 6-channels consisting of a flexible anterior and a rigid posterior part were built each with three loop coils. A pair of stacked resonators was added concentrically to the center loops (anterior and posterior) of the base array. The evaluated stacked resonators were butterflies, composites and dipoles which yielded a total of three 8-channel arrays. The arrays were compared using noise correlations and single-channel signal-to-noise ratio maps in a phantom. Combined signal-to-noise ratio maps and parallel imaging performances were measured and compared in vivo in 6 healthy volunteers. The results were compared to the base and a commercial array. The SNR values in the prostate yielded by all the arrays were not statistically different using fully sampled k-space. However, significant differences were found in the parallel imaging performance of the arrays. More specifically, up to 88% geometric factor reduction was found compared to the commercial array and up to 83% reduction compared to the base array using butterfly coils. Thus, signal-to-noise ratio improvements were observed with stacked resonators when using parallel imaging. The use of stacked elements, in particular butterfly coils, can improve the performance of a base array consisting solely of single loops when using parallel imaging. We expect prostate MRI at 3 Tesla to benefit from using combinations of single loops and stacked resonators.

Magnetic resonance imaging in active surveillance-a modern approach

In recent years, active surveillance has been increasingly adopted as a conservative management approach to low and sometimes intermediate risk prostate cancer, to avoid or delay treatment until there is evidence of higher risk disease. A number of studies have investigated the role of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) in this setting. MpMRI refers to the use of multiple MRI sequences (T2-weighted anatomical and functional imaging which can include diffusion-weighted imaging, dynamic contrast enhanced imaging, spectroscopy). Each of the parameters investigates different aspects of the prostate gland (anatomy, cellularity, vascularity, etc.). In addition to a qualitative assessment, the radiologist can also extrapolate quantitative imaging biomarkers from these sequences, for example the apparent diffusion coefficient from diffusion-weighted imaging. There are many different types of articles (e.g., reviews, commentaries, consensus meetings, etc.) that address the use of mpMRI in men on active surveillance for prostate cancer. In this paper, we compare original articles that investigate the role of the different mpMRI sequences in men on active surveillance for prostate cancer, in order to discuss the relative utility of the different sequences, and combinations of sequences. We searched MEDLINE/PubMed for manuscripts published from inception to 1^st December 2017. The search terms used were (prostate cancer or prostate adenocarcinoma or prostatic carcinoma or prostate carcinoma or prostatic adenocarcinoma) and (MRI or NMR or magnetic resonance imaging or mpMRI or multiparametric MRI) and active surveillance. Overall, 425 publications were found. All abstracts were reviewed to identify papers with original data. Twenty-five papers were analysed and summarised. Some papers based their analysis only on one mpMRI sequence, while others assessed two or more. The evidence from this review suggests that qualitative assessments and quantitative data from different mpMRI sequences hold promise in the management of men on active surveillance for prostate cancer. Both qualitative and quantitative approaches should be considered when assessing mpMRI of the prostate. There is a need for robust studies assessing the relative utility of different combinations of sequences in a systematic manner to determine the most efficient use of mpMRI in men on active surveillance.

Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: Short Dual-Pulse Sequence versus Standard Multiparametric MR Imaging-A Multireader Study

Purpose To compare the diagnostic performance of a short dual-pulse sequence magnetic resonance (MR) imaging protocol versus a standard six-pulse sequence multiparametric MR imaging protocol for detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. Materials and Methods This HIPAA-compliant study was approved by the regional ethics committee. Between July 2013 and March 2015, 63 patients from a prospectively accrued study population who underwent MR imaging of the prostate including transverse T1-weighted; transverse, coronal, and sagittal T2-weighted; diffusion-weighted; and dynamic contrast material-enhanced MR imaging with a 3-T imager at a single institution were included in this retrospective study. The short MR imaging protocol image set consisted of transverse T2-weighted and diffusion-weighted images only. The standard MR imaging protocol image set contained images from all six pulse sequences. Three expert readers from different institutions assessed the likelihood of prostate cancer on a five-point scale. Diagnostic performance on a quadrant basis was assessed by using areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves, and differences were evaluated by using 83.8% confidence intervals. Intra- and interreader agreement was assessed by using the intraclass correlation coefficient. Transperineal template saturation biopsy served as the standard of reference. Results At histopathologic evaluation, 84 of 252 (33%) quadrants were positive for cancer in 38 of 63 (60%) men. There was no significant difference in detection of tumors larger than or equal to 0.5 mL for any of the readers of the short MR imaging protocol, with areas under the curve in the range of 0.74-0.81 (83.8% confidence interval [CI]: 0.64, 0.89), and for readers of the standard MR imaging protocol, areas under the curve were 0.71-0.77 (83.8% CI: 0.62, 0.86). Ranges for sensitivity were 0.76-0.95 (95% CI: 0.53, 0.99) and 0.76-0.86 (95% CI: 0.53, 0.97) and those for specificity were 0.84-0.90 (95% CI: 0.79, 0.94) and 0.82-0.90 (95% CI: 0.77, 0.94) for the short and standard MR protocols, respectively. Ranges for interreader agreement were 0.48-0.60 (83.8% CI: 0.41, 0.66) and 0.49-0.63 (83.8% CI: 0.42, 0.68) for the short and standard MR imaging protocols. Conclusion For the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer, no difference was found in the diagnostic performance of the short MR imaging protocol consisting of only transverse T2-weighted and diffusion-weighted imaging pulse sequences compared with that of a standard multiparametric MR imaging protocol. ^© RSNA, 2017 Online supplemental material is available for this article.