Suppr
超能文献

3T MRI 检测前列腺癌：扩散加权成像与动态对比增强 MRI 联合 T2 加权成像的比较。

Prostate cancer detection with 3 T MRI: comparison of diffusion-weighted imaging and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in combination with T2-weighted imaging.

机构信息

Department of Radiology, Dokkyo Medical University School of Medicine, Mibu, Japan.

出版信息

J Magn Reson Imaging. 2010 Mar;31(3):625-31. doi: 10.1002/jmri.22075.

DOI:10.1002/jmri.22075

PMID:20187206

Abstract

PURPOSE

To evaluate the diagnostic ability of diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) and dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging (DCEI) in combination with T2-weighted imaging (T2WI) for the detection of prostate cancer using 3 T magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with a phased-array body coil.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Fifty-three patients with elevated serum levels of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) were evaluated by T2WI, DWI, and DCEI prior to needle biopsy. The obtained data from T2WI alone (protocol A), a combination of T2WI and DWI (protocol B), a combination T2WI and DCEI (protocol C), and a combination of T2WI plus DWI and DCEI (protocol D) were subjected to receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis.

RESULTS

The sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and area under the ROC curve (Az) for region-based analysis were: 61%, 91%, 84%, and 0.8415, respectively, in protocol A; 76%, 94%, 90%, and 0.8931, respectively, in protocol B; 77%, 93%, 89%, and 0.8655, respectively, in protocol C; and 81%, 96%, 92%, and 0.8968, respectively in protocol D. ROC analysis revealed significant differences between protocols A and B (P = 0.0008) and between protocols A and D (P = 0.0004).

CONCLUSION

In patients with elevated PSA levels the combination of T2WI, DWI, DCEI using 3 T MRI may be a reasonable approach for the detection of prostate cancer.

摘要

目的

使用体部相控阵线圈 3T 磁共振成像（MRI）评估扩散加权成像（DWI）和动态对比增强成像（DCEI）联合 T2 加权成像（T2WI）检测前列腺癌的诊断能力。

材料与方法

53 例前列腺特异性抗原（PSA）水平升高的患者在进行经皮穿刺活检前分别接受了 T2WI、DWI 和 DCEI 检查。单独 T2WI（方案 A）、T2WI 联合 DWI（方案 B）、T2WI 联合 DCEI（方案 C）和 T2WI 联合 DWI 和 DCEI（方案 D）所获得的数据进行了受试者工作特征（ROC）曲线分析。

结果

基于区域分析的敏感性、特异性、准确性和 ROC 曲线下面积（Az）分别为：方案 A 中为 61%、91%、84%和 0.8415；方案 B 中为 76%、94%、90%和 0.8931；方案 C 中为 77%、93%、89%和 0.8655；方案 D 中为 81%、96%、92%和 0.8968。ROC 分析显示方案 A 与方案 B（P=0.0008）和方案 A 与方案 D（P=0.0004）之间存在显著差异。