Diffusion-weighted echo-planar-imaging (DW-EPI) is the cornerstone of multiparametric MRI in evaluation of prostate cancer in the peripheral zone and can help in the detection of transitional zone tumors. However, DW-EPI suffers from significant image distortion and signal loss in men with hip arthroplasty, a population at risk for development of prostate cancer. We have implemented a DWI sequence with turbo spin-echo readout, MultiVane k-space trajectory, and short-tau inversion recovery fat-suppression that provides images without appreciable distortion and promising preliminary results in evaluation of prostate cancer in men with hip implants.
Phantom Studies
Experiments were performed on a 3T scanner (Ingenia; Philips Healthcare, Best, The Netherlands) with a 16-channel anterior torso coil, 12-channel posterior coil embedded in the table, and an endorectal coil (Medrad, Warrendale, PA). A Titanium-alloy hip implant (Zimmer-Biomet, Warsaw, IN) was placed adjacent to a prostate phantom (version 3.1, Yezitronix Group Inc., Quebec, Canada), simulating the artifact caused by the hip implant in vivo. TSE-based DWI sequences were tested and optimized with both Cartesian and MultiVane (MV) k-space trajectories, using spectral presaturation inversion recovery (SPIR) and non-selective short-tau inversion recovery (STIR), respectively, for fat-suppression. Axial and coronal T2-weighted TSE and axial single-shot DW-EPI images were obtained per standard clinical protocol for comparison.
Patient Studies
TSE-based DWI sequences (both Cartesian and MV) were added to the standard clinical protocol (performed on a 3T scanner with similar configurations as above) in 5 men with clinical suspicion of prostate cancer and prior hip arthroplasty and non-diagnostic standard DW-EPI images. Limited TSE acquisitions were also performed in 8 patients without prosthesis to compare image quality/distortion and tumor visualization to that of the standard DW-EPI acquisitions. Under Institutional Review Board approval MRIs in these patients were retrospectively reviewed.
Table 1 summarizes the optimized imaging parameters. Figure 1 illustrates significant image distortion and signal loss in the clinical DW-EPI acquisition (Figure 1, D & E). While a single-shot DWI-TSE with Cartesian k-space trajectory eliminated image distortion, it suffered severe signal loss in proximity to the metal (Figure 1, F & G), due to increased B0-inhomogeneity and use of frequency-selective SPIR fat-suppression. A DWI-TSE with MultiVane k-space trajectory and non-selective STIR fat-suppression (DWI-STIR-MV) revealed the entire gland without appreciable image distortion (Figure 1, H & I).
In patients without hip implants, DW-EPI demonstrates favorable image quality and higher SNR compared to DWI-STIR-MV (Figure 2), with good agreement in estimated tumor volume and average apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) between the two techniques. However, DW-EPI suffered significant image distortion and signal loss in a subject with a hip implant (Figure 3). The DWI-STIR-MV sequence revealed the prostate without appreciable image distortion; a focus suspicious for cancer in this patient was only visible on the T2-weighted and DWI-STIR-MV images. Targeted MR/transrectal ultrasound fusion biopsy confirmed Gleason 4+4 adenocarcinoma.
Figure 4 illustrates representative images from prostate MRI in a patient with suspected prostate cancer, prior total left hip arthroplasty, and UroLift® system placement (metal devices implanted within the prostate for treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia). While the DW-EPI images were non-diagnostic due to artifacts from the hip implant and the prostate device, the DWI-STIR-MV sequence provided diagnostic images, revealing a focus suspicious for cancer. Of note, same-day images from the same patient at 1.5T did not result in improved image quality (Figure 4E).
1. Hambrock, T., et al., Relationship between apparent diffusion coefficients at 3.0-T MR imaging and Gleason grade in peripheral zone prostate cancer. Radiology, 2011. 259(2): p. 453-61.
2. Vargas, H.A., et al., Diffusion-weighted endorectal MR imaging at 3 T for prostate cancer: tumor detection and assessment of aggressiveness. Radiology, 2011. 259(3): p. 775-84.
3. Turkbey, B., et al., Is apparent diffusion coefficient associated with clinical risk scores for prostate cancers that are visible on 3-T MR images? Radiology, 2011. 258(2): p. 488-95.
4. Bittencourt, L.K., et al., Prostate MRI: diffusion-weighted imaging at 1.5T correlates better with prostatectomy Gleason Grades than TRUS-guided biopsies in peripheral zone tumours. Eur Radiol, 2012. 22(2): p. 468-75.
5. Oto, A., et al., Diffusion-weighted and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI of prostate cancer: correlation of quantitative MR parameters with Gleason score and tumor angiogenesis. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2011. 197(6): p. 1382-90.
6. Wu, L.M., et al., The clinical value of diffusion-weighted imaging in combination with T2-weighted imaging in diagnosing prostate carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2012. 199(1): p. 103-10.
7. Haffner, J., et al., Peripheral zone prostate cancers: location and intraprostatic patterns of spread at histopathology. Prostate, 2009. 69(3): p. 276-82.
8. Maradit Kremers, H., et al., Prevalence of Total Hip and Knee Replacement in the United States. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 2015. 97(17): p. 1386-97.
9. Jemal, A., et al., Cancer statistics, 2010. CA Cancer J Clin, 2010. 60(5): p. 277-300.
10. American Cancer Society. 2017 01/05/2017 08/162017]; Available from: https://www.cancer.org/cancer/prostate-cancer/about/key-statistics.html#references.