Layer Yannik Christian, Mürtz Petra, Isaak Alexander, Bischoff Leon, Wichtmann Barbara Daria, Katemann Christoph, Weiss Kilian, Luetkens Julian, Pieper Claus Christian
Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany.
Philips GmbH Market DACH, Hamburg, Germany.
Sci Rep. 2025 Mar 25;15(1):10265. doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-94777-6.
Aim was to evaluate accelerated diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) of the prostate using echo planar imaging with compressed SENSE based reconstruction (EPICS) and assess its performance in comparison to conventional DWI with parallel imaging. In this single-center, prospective study, 35 men with clinically suspected prostate cancer underwent prostate MRI at 3T. In each patient, two different DWI sequences, one with 3 b-values (b = 100, 400, 800s/mm²) for ADC-calculation and one with b = 1500s/mm², were acquired with conventional SENSE and with EPICS. Quantitative evaluation was done by regions-of-interest (ROIs) analysis of prostate lesions and normal appearing peripheral zones (PZ). Apparent contrast-to-noise (aCNR) and apparent signal-to-noise ratios (aSNR) were calculated. Mean ADC and coefficient of variation (CV) of ADC were compared. For qualitative assessment, artifacts, lesion conspicuity, and overall image quality were rated using a 5-point-Likert-scale (1: nondiagnostic to 5: excellent). Additionally, the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PIRADS 2.1) was rated for DWI. The average total scan time reduction with EPICS was 43%. Quantitative analysis showed no significant differences between conventional SENSE and EPICS, neither for aSNR (e.g. b1500: 24.37 ± 10.28 vs. b1500: 24.08 ± 12.2; p = 0.98) and aCNR (e.g. b1500:9.53 ± 7.22 vs. b1500:8.88 ± 6.16; p = 0.55) nor for aSNR (e.g. b1500:15.18 ± 6.48 vs. b1500: 15 ± 7.4; p = 0.94). Rating of artifacts, lesion conspicuity, overall image quality and PIRADS-scores yielded comparable results for the two techniques (e.g. lesion conspicuity for ADC: 4(2-5) vs. ADC 4(2-5); p = 0.99 and for b1500: 4(2-5) vs. b1500 4(2-5); p = 0.25). Overall, accelerated DWI of the prostate using EPICS significantly reduced acquisition time without compromising image quality compared to conventional DWI.
目的是使用基于压缩感知重建的回波平面成像(EPICS)评估前列腺的加速扩散加权成像(DWI),并与并行成像的传统DWI相比评估其性能。在这项单中心前瞻性研究中,35名临床怀疑患有前列腺癌的男性在3T下接受了前列腺MRI检查。在每位患者中,使用传统的敏感性编码技术(SENSE)和EPICS采集了两种不同的DWI序列,一种具有3个b值(b = 100、400、800s/mm²)用于计算表观扩散系数(ADC),另一种具有b = 1500s/mm²。通过对前列腺病变和外观正常的外周带(PZ)进行感兴趣区(ROI)分析进行定量评估。计算表观对比噪声比(aCNR)和表观信噪比(aSNR)。比较ADC的平均值和ADC的变异系数(CV)。对于定性评估,使用5分李克特量表(1:无法诊断至5:优秀)对伪影、病变清晰度和整体图像质量进行评分。此外,对DWI的前列腺成像报告和数据系统(PIRADS 2.1)进行评分。使用EPICS平均总扫描时间减少了43%。定量分析显示,传统SENSE和EPICS之间在aSNR(例如b1500:24.37±10.28 vs. b1500:24.08±12.2;p = 0.98)、aCNR(例如b1500:9.53±7.22 vs. b1500:8.88±6.16;p = 0.55)以及ADC的aSNR(例如b1500:15.18±6.48 vs. b1500:15±7.4;p = 0.94)方面均无显著差异。对伪影、病变清晰度、整体图像质量和PIRADS评分的评定表明,两种技术的结果相当(例如ADC的病变清晰度:4(2 - 5)vs. ADC 4(2 - 5);p = 0.99,b1500的病变清晰度:4(2 - 5)vs. b1500 4(2 - 5);p = 0.25)。总体而言,与传统DWI相比,使用EPICS的前列腺加速DWI显著缩短了采集时间且不影响图像质量。