OBJECTIVE: To compare image quality and geometric distortion between readout-segmented diffusion-weighted imaging (rs-DWI) and selective-excitation accelerated reduced-field of view (FOV) DWI (sTX-DWI) of the prostate. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty-five patients underwent 3-T MRI of the prostate including rs-DWI and sTX-DWI (b values, 0, 50, and 1000 seconds/mm²; FOV, 150 × 150 mm² and 77 ×150 mm for rs-DWI and sTX-DWI; slice thickness, 3 mm; acquisition time, 8:18 min and 1:37 min for rs-DWI and sTX-DWI). Two readers evaluated aspects of image quality and geometric distortion on a 5-point Likert scale. Quantitative analysis of geometric distortion was assessed by measurements of anteroposterior and left-right diameters and compared to T2-weighted turbo-spin echo sequence using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). RESULTS: There was no significant difference in resolution, capsule demarcation, and zonal anatomy (P = 0.111-0.866). Overall image quality was rated "above average" by reader 1 (4.09 ± 0.66 and 4.03 ± 0.79; P = 0.433) and reader 2 (3.86 ± 0.66 and 3.80 ± 0.74; P = 0.465) for rs-DWI and sTX-DWI. Reader 1 (0.74 ± 0.67 and 1.17 ± 0.84; P < 0.001) and reader 2 (0.55 ± 0.64 and 1.09 ± 0.95; P < 0.001) rated the level of geometric distortion significantly lower for rs-DWI than sTX-DWI. Readout-segmented DWI (0.9 ± 2.2 mm) and sTX-DWI (2.1 ± 3.8 mm) overestimated the anteroposterior diameter of the prostate compared to T2-weighted turbo-spin echo sequence (P < 0.001), the difference being more pronounced for sTX-DWI [ICC, 0.89 (95% confidence interval, 0.83-0.93)] compared to rs-DWI [ICC, 0.96 (95% confidence interval, 0.94-0.96)]. CONCLUSION: Selective-excitation accelerated reduced-FOV DW images (sTX-DWI) of the prostate can be acquired more than 5 times faster than rs-DWI with comparable image quality, at the expense of significantly increased geometric distortion.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Barth et al. (2015) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: