Purpose To compare the diagnostic performance of a short dual-pulse sequence magnetic resonance (MR) imaging protocol versus a standard six-pulse sequence multiparametric MR imaging protocol for detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. Materials and Methods This HIPAA-compliant study was approved by the regional ethics committee. Between July 2013 and March 2015, 63 patients from a prospectively accrued study population who underwent MR imaging of the prostate including transverse T1-weighted; transverse, coronal, and sagittal T2-weighted; diffusion-weighted; and dynamic contrast material-enhanced MR imaging with a 3-T imager at a single institution were included in this retrospective study. The short MR imaging protocol image set consisted of transverse T2-weighted and diffusion-weighted images only. The standard MR imaging protocol image set contained images from all six pulse sequences. Three expert readers from different institutions assessed the likelihood of prostate cancer on a five-point scale. Diagnostic performance on a quadrant basis was assessed by using areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves, and differences were evaluated by using 83.8% confidence intervals. Intra- and interreader agreement was assessed by using the intraclass correlation coefficient. Transperineal template saturation biopsy served as the standard of reference. Results At histopathologic evaluation, 84 of 252 (33%) quadrants were positive for cancer in 38 of 63 (60%) men. There was no significant difference in detection of tumors larger than or equal to 0.5 mL for any of the readers of the short MR imaging protocol, with areas under the curve in the range of 0.74-0.81 (83.8% confidence interval [CI]: 0.64, 0.89), and for readers of the standard MR imaging protocol, areas under the curve were 0.71-0.77 (83.8% CI: 0.62, 0.86). Ranges for sensitivity were 0.76-0.95 (95% CI: 0.53, 0.99) and 0.76-0.86 (95% CI: 0.53, 0.97) and those for specificity were 0.84-0.90 (95% CI: 0.79, 0.94) and 0.82-0.90 (95% CI: 0.77, 0.94) for the short and standard MR protocols, respectively. Ranges for interreader agreement were 0.48-0.60 (83.8% CI: 0.41, 0.66) and 0.49-0.63 (83.8% CI: 0.42, 0.68) for the short and standard MR imaging protocols. Conclusion For the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer, no difference was found in the diagnostic performance of the short MR imaging protocol consisting of only transverse T2-weighted and diffusion-weighted imaging pulse sequences compared with that of a standard multiparametric MR imaging protocol. RSNA, 2017 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

T2-weighted images may be acquired with comparable IQ using a PPA coil as compared to an ER coil, while DWI images showed better IQ using the ER coil for one of two readers. The insertion of the ER coil caused low to moderate discomfort and pain in patients.

No abstract

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.

Introduction: The purpose of this study was to compare diagnostic accuracy of a prostate multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) protocol for detection of prostate cancer between images acquired with and without en-dorectal coil (ERC). Materials: This study was approved by the regional ethics committee. Between 2014 and 2015, 33 patients (median age 51.3 years; range 42.1-77.3 years) who underwent prostate-MRI at 3T scanners at 2 different institutions, acquired with (mpMRI_ERC) and without (mpMRI_PPA) ERC and who received radical prostatectomy, were included in this retrospective study. Two expert readers (R1, R2) attributed a PI-RADS version 2 score for the most suspect (i. e. index) lesion for mpMRI_PPA and mpMRI_ERC. Sensitivity and positive predictive value for detection of index lesions were assessed using 2 × 2 contingency tables. Differences between groups were tested using the McNemar test. Whole-mount histopathology served as reference standard. Results: On a quadrant-basis cumulative sensitivity ranged between 0.61-0.67 and 0.76-0.88 for mpMRI_PPA and mpMRI_ERC protocols, respectively (p > 0.05). Cumulative positive predictive value ranged between 0.80-0.81 and 0.89-0.91 for mpMRI_PPA and mpMRI_ERC protocols, respectively. The differences were not statistically significant for R1 (p = 0.267) or R2 (p = 0.508). Conclusion: Our results suggest that there may be no significant differences for detection of prostate cancer between images acquired with and without an ERC.