The primary objective was to compare T2-FRFSE and T2-PROPELLER sequences for image quality. The secondary objective was to compare the ability to detect prostate lesions at MRI in the presence and absence of motion artefact using the 2 sequences.
Methods:
99 patients underwent 3 T MRI examination of the prostate, including T2-FRFSE and T2-PROPELLER sequences. All patients underwent prostate biopsy. Two independent readers rated overall image quality, presence of motion artefact, and blurring for both sequences using a 5-point Likert scale. Scores were compared for the whole group and for subgroups with and without significant motion artefact. Outcome for lesion detection at an MRI threshold of PI-RADS score ≥3 was compared between T2-FRFSE and T2-PROPELLER.
Results:
The overall image quality was not significantly different between T2-FRFSE and T2-PROPELLER sequences (3.74 vs. 3.93, p = 0.275). T2-PROPELLER recorded a lesser degree of motion artefact (score 4.53 vs. 3.78, p <0.0001), but demonstrated greater image blurring (score 3.29 vs. 3.73, p <0.001). However, in a subgroup of patients with significant motion artefact on T2-FRFSE, the T2-PROPELLER sequence demonstrated significantly higher image quality (3.46 vs. 2.49, p <0.001). T2-FRFSE and T2-PROPELLER showed comparable positive predictive values for lesion detection at 93.2% and 97.7%, respectively.
Conclusions:
T2-PROPELLER provides higher quality imaging in the presence of motion artefact, but T2-FRFSE is preferred in the absence of motion. T2-PROPELLER is therefore recommended as a secondary T2 sequence when imaging requires repeat acquisition due to motion artefact.
BrayFFerlayJSoerjomataramISiegelRLTorreLAJemalA. Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. Global Cancer Statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68(6):394–424.
2.
MottetNVan den BerghRCNBriersE, et al.EAU Guidelines. In: European Association of Urology Guidelines 2019 Edition. Arnhem, The Netherlands: European Association of Urology; 2019:ISBN 978-94-92671-04-2.
3.
BjurlinMACarrollPREggenerS, et al.Update of the AUA Policy Statement on the Use of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Diagnosis, Staging and Management of Prostate Cancer. J Urol.2019;203(4):706–712.
TurkbeyBRosenkrantzABHaiderMA, et al.Prostate imaging reporting and data system Version 2.1: 2019 update of prostate imaging reporting and data system Version 2. Eur Urol. 2019;76(3):340–351.
6.
De RooijMIsraëlBTummersM, et al.ESUR/ESUI consensus statements on multi-parametric MRI for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer: quality requirements for image acquisition, interpretation and radiologists’ training. Eur Radiol. 2020;30(10):5404–5416.
7.
BarrettTPadhaniARPatelA, et al.Certification in reporting magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate: recommendations of a UK consensus meeting. BJU Int. 2021;127(3):304–306.
8.
RosenkrantzABBennettGLDoshiADengFMBabbJSTanejaSS. T2-weighted imaging of the prostate: impact of the BLADE technique on image quality and tumor assessment. Abdom Imaging. 2014;40(3):552–559.
9.
CaglicIBarrettT. Optimising prostate mpMRI: prepare for success. Clin Radiol. 2019;74(11):831–840.
10.
HirokawaYIsodaHMaetaniYSArizonoSShimadaKTogashiK. Evaluation of motion correction effect and image quality with the periodically rotated overlapping parallel lines with enhanced reconstruction (PROPELLER) (BLADE) and parallel imaging acquisition technique in the upper abdomen. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2008;28(4):957–962.
11.
FroehlichJMMetensTChillaBHauserNKlarhoeferMKubik-HuchRA. Should less motion sensitive T2-weighted BLADE TSE replace Cartesian TSE for female pelvic MRI?Insights Imaging. 2012;3(6):611–618.
12.
Meier-SchroersMMarxCSchmeelFC, et al.Revised PROPELLER for T2-weighted imaging of the prostate at 3 Tesla: impact on lesion detection and PI-RADS classification. Eur Radiol. 2018;28(1):24–30.
13.
KuhlCKBruhnRKrämerNNebelungSHeidenreichASchradingS. Abbreviated biparametric prostate MR imaging in men with elevated prostate-specific antigen. Radiology. 2017;285(2):493–505.
14.
LandisJRKochGG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33(1):159–174.
15.
GigantiFAllenCEmbertonMMooreCMKasivisvanathanV; PRECISION Study Group. Prostate Imaging Quality (PI-QUAL): a new quality control scoring system for multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate from the PRECISION trial. Eur Urol Oncol. 2020;3(5):615–619.
16.
SathianathenNJOmerAHarrissE, et al.Negative predictive value of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer in the prostate imaging reporting and data system era: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2020;78(3):402–414.
17.
Rafat ZandKReinholdCHaiderMANakaiARohomanLMaheshwariS. Artifacts and pitfalls in MR imaging of the pelvis. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2007;26(3):480–497.
18.
SnojZGillABRundoLSushentsevNBarrettT. Three-dimensional MRI evaluation of the effect of bladder volume on prostate translocation and distortion. Radiol Oncol. 2020;54(1):48–56.
19.
CaglicIHansenNLSloughRAPattersonAJBarrettT. Evaluating the effect of rectal distension on prostate multiparametric MRI image quality. Eur J Radiol. 2017;90:174–180.
20.
SushentsevNTannerJSloughRAKozlovVGillABBarrettT. The Effect of different drinking and voiding preparations on magnetic resonance imaging bladder distention in normal volunteers and patients. Can Assoc Radiol J. 2018;69(4):383–389.
21.
KneelandJDShimakawaAWehrliFW. Effect of intersection spacing on MR image contrast and study time. Radiology. 1986;158(3):819–822.
22.
Van GriethuysenJJMBusEMHauptmannM, et al.Gas-induced susceptibility artefacts on diffusion-weighted MRI of the rectum at 1.5 T - effect of applying a micro-enema to improve image quality. Eur J Radiol. 2018;99:131–137.
23.
CoskunMMehralivandSShihJH, et al.Impact of bowel preparation with Fleet’s™ enema on prostate MRI quality. Abdom Radiol (NY). 2020;45(12):4252–4259.
24.
LimCQuonJMcInnesMShabanaWMEl-KhodaryMSchiedaN. Does a cleansing enema improve image quality of 3 T surface coil multiparametric prostate MRI?J Magn Reson Imaging. 2015;42(3):689–697.
25.
SloughRACaglicIHansenNLPattersonAJBarrettT. Effect of hyoscine butylbromide on prostate multiparametric MRI anatomical and functional image quality. Clin Radiol. 2018;73(2):216.e9–216.e14.
26.
UllrichTQuentinMSchmaltzAK, et al.Hyoscine butylbromide significantly decreases motion artefacts and allows better delineation of anatomic structures in mp-MRI of the prostate. Eur Radiol. 2018;28(1):17–23.
27.
LeeJHChoiYHCheonJE, et al.Improved abdominal MRI in non-breath-holding children using a radial k-space sampling technique. Pediatr Radiol. 2015;45(6):840–846.
28.
CzarnieckiMCaglicIGristJT, et al.Role of PROPELLER-DWI of the prostate in reducing distortion and artefact from total hip replacement metalwork. Eur J Radiol. 2018;102:213–219.
29.
ZaitsevMMaclarenJHerbstM. Motion artifacts in MRI: a complex problem with many partial solutions. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2015;42(4):887–901.
30.
GreerMDShihJHLayN, et al.Validation of the Dominant Sequence Paradigm and Role of Dynamic Contrast-enhanced Imaging in PI-RADS Version 2. Radiology. 2017;285(3):859–869.
31.
BarrettTSloughRSushentsevN, et al.Three-year experience of a dedicated prostate mpMRI pre-biopsy programme and effect on timed cancer diagnostic pathways. Clin Radiol. 2019;74(11):894.e1–894.e9.
32.
ZawaidehJPSalaEShaidaN, et al.Diagnostic accuracy of biparametric versus multiparametric prostate MRI: assessment of contrast benefit in clinical practice. Eur Radiol. 2020;30(7):4039–4049.
33.
BarrettTRajeshARosenkrantzABChoykePLTurkbeyB. PI-RADS version 2.1: one small step for prostate MRI. Clin Radiol. 2019;74(11):841–852.
34.
LawrenceEMTangSYBarrettT, et al.Prostate cancer: performance characteristics of combined T2 W and DW-MRI scoring in the setting of template transperineal re-biopsy using MR-TRUS fusion. Eur Radiol. 2014;24(7):1497–1505.
35.
SushentsevNCaglicISalaE, et al.The effect of capped biparametric magnetic resonance imaging on weekly prostate cancer imaging workload. Br J Radiol. 2020;93(1108):20190929.
