Editorial
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2015.
World J Radiol. Aug 28, 2015; 7(8): 184-188
Published online Aug 28, 2015. doi: 10.4329/wjr.v7.i8.184
Table 1 Clinical studies of intravoxel incoherent motion imaging in prostate cancer
Ref.No. ofpatientsPathologic referenceb-values(s/mm2)MR parametersPCa values1Normal prostate values1Significance
Döpfert et al[9]13TRUS biopsy0, 50, 500, 8003.0 T; TR/TE: 2600/66 ms; FOV: 204 mm × 204 mm; Matrix: 136 × 136; slice thickness: 3 mm; 8 averagesADC: 1.01 ± 0.22 D: 0.84 ± 0.19 D*: 7.52 ± 4.77 f: 14.27 ± 7.10ADC: 1.49 ± 0.17 D: 1.21 ± 0.22 D*: 6.82 ± 2.78 f: 21.25 ± 8.32ADC, D, f significantly lower in PCa vs healthy prostate tissue Higher variation in maps of D and f compared to ADC
Shinmoto et al[10]26TRUS biopsy or RP0, 10, 20, 30, 50, 80, 100, 200, 400, 10003.0 T; TR/TE: 5132/40 ms; Matrix: 80 × 80; slice thickness/gap: 3.5/0.1 mm; iPAT factor, 2; NEX = 2ADC: 0.90 ± 0.16 D: 0.50 ± 0.15 D*: 5.35 ± 6.27 f: 35 ± 13ADC: 1.76 ± 0.22 D: 0.89 ± 0.24 D*: 3.02 ± 0.86 f: 58 ± 11ADC, D, f significantly lower in PCa vs noncancerous PZ Improved fit in 81% of study subjects for biexponential curve
Kuru et al[11]27MR-TRUS fusion biopsy0, 50, 100, 150, 200, 250, 8003.0 T; TR/TE: 3100/52 ms; FOV: 280 mm × 210 mm; Matrix: 128 × 96; slice thickness: 3 mm; iPAT factor, 2; 5 averagesADC: 0.88 ± 0.29 D: 1.04 ± 0.23 D*: 31.1 ± 45.0 f: 9.5 ± 5.5ADC: 1.56 ± 0.23 D: 1.44 ± 0.19 D*: 10.9 ± 4.0 f: 11.1 ± 5.0Only D and ADC showed high AUC (≥ 0.90) for PCa vs normal Limited differentiation of PCa grade using f or D*
Pang et al[12]33MR-TRUS fusion biopsy0, 188, 375, 5633.0 T; TR/TE: 4584/59 ms; FOV:160 × 180 mm; slice thickness: 3.0 mm; iPAT factor, 2; 4+ averagesD: 0.99 ± 0.29 f: 7.2 ± 2.6 Ktrans: 0.39 ±0.22 Vp: 8.4 ± 6.6D: 1.76 ± 0.35 f: 3.7 ± 1 .9 Ktrans: 0.18 ± 0.10 Vp: 3.4 ± 2.6Significant increase in f for PCa vs normal prostate Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r) for f and Ktrans of 0.51
Table 2 Clinical studies of diffusion kurtosis imaging in prostate cancer
Ref.No. ofpatientsPathologic referenceb-values(s/mm2)MR parametersQuantitative parameters1Significance
Quentin et al[14]31Biopsy0, 300, 600, 10003.0 T; TR/TE: 1700/101 ms; FOV: 204 × 204 mm; Matrix: 136 × 136; slice thickness: 6 mm; iPAT factor, 2; 4 averagesKaxial, PCa: 1.78 ± 0.39 Kaxial, TZ: 1.40 ± 0.12 Kaxial, PZ: 1.09 ± 0.12DKI better fit than monoexponential; Difference for K between PCa and normal TZ/PZ is significant
Rosenkrantz et al[16]47Biopsy0, 500, 1000, 1500, 20003.0 T; TR/TE: 3500/81 ms; FOV: 280 mm × 218 mm; Matrix: 100 × 100; slice thickness: 4 mm; iPAT factor, 2; 6 averagesK, high GS: 1.05 ± 0.26 K, low GS: 0.89 ± 0.20 K, PZ: 0.57 ± 0.07Significant difference between K in high GS vs low GS sextants; K found to have better sensitivity, AUC than ADC or D for PCa
Suo et al[17]19RP0, 500, 800, 1200, 1500, 20003.0 T; TR/TE: 3940/106 ms; FOV: 280 mm × 280 mm; Matrix: 128 × 128; slice thickness/gap: 3/1 mm; 4 averagesK, PCa: 0.96 ± 0.20 K, PZ: 0.59 ± 0.08Significant difference for K between PCa and normal PZ; GS correlates significantly with K
Tamura et al[18]20RP0, 10, 20, 30, 50, 80, 100, 200, 400, 1000, 15003.0 T; TR/TE: 5000/49 ms; FOV: 240 × 240 mm; Matrix: 80 × 80; slice thickness/gap: 3.5/0.1 mm; iPAT factor, 2; NEX = 2K, PCa: 1.19 ± 0.24 K, BPH: 0.99 ± 0.28 K, PZ: 0.63 ± 0.23Significant difference for K between PCa and normal PZ but marked overlap for K between PCa and BPH