Yuriy A Vasilev, Olga Yu Panina, Dmitry S Semenov, Ekaterina S Akhmad, Kristina A Sergunova, Stanislav A Kivasev, Alexey V Petraikin
{"title":"髋关节植入物患者的前列腺磁共振成像(MRI)--使用模型制定方案。","authors":"Yuriy A Vasilev, Olga Yu Panina, Dmitry S Semenov, Ekaterina S Akhmad, Kristina A Sergunova, Stanislav A Kivasev, Alexey V Petraikin","doi":"10.21037/qims-24-604","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Metal structures are a source of artifacts that significantly complicate the interpretation of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The use of prostate MRI as a preliminary test in men with a suspicion on prostate cancer leads to an increased use of the test. The aim of this study was to solve a clinically significant problem: to ensure the reduction of artifacts from metal hip implants during prostate MRI. Another goal was to evaluate the impact of artifact reduction methods on quantitative measurements.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The prostate gland (PG) phantom model was a cylinder filled with an aqueous solution of polyvinylpyrrolidone at the concentrations of 40%, 30%, and 20% [central zone (CZ), peripheral zone (PZ), and \"lesion\", respectively]. Phantom MRI study was conducted on Philips Ingenia 1.5T and Philips Ingenia 3T scanners.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>For 1.5 T, the reduction in the influence of artifacts inside region of interest (ROI) was observed, expressed in a decrease in the average apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) (CZ, PZ, \"lesion\") for the manual artifact reduction (MAR) and ZOOM (title of software artifact reduction) techniques compared to the standard method. For 3T this effect was not detected. The same ADC results were obtained for Standard and MAR techniques, and increased ADC values for ZOOM. Despite the fact that the spread of ADC values on 3.0T scanners was minimal, there was a significant deviation of ADC values from the reference ones (up to 30.4%). Therefore, it is necessary to use a correction coefficient in the ADC calculation for the 3.0 T device. In the presented clinical case, high-quality tomograms were obtained without any artifacts, despite the presence of two hip replacement devices in the scanning area.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The accurate prostate MRI in the presence of implants is essential for an accurate diagnosis. This approach allows to reduce artifacts from hip implants, to visualize PG and periprostatic tissue in the best way, and to detect malignant and benign changes.</p>","PeriodicalId":54267,"journal":{"name":"Quantitative Imaging in Medicine and Surgery","volume":"14 10","pages":"7128-7137"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11485349/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in patients with hip implants-presetting a protocol using a phantom.\",\"authors\":\"Yuriy A Vasilev, Olga Yu Panina, Dmitry S Semenov, Ekaterina S Akhmad, Kristina A Sergunova, Stanislav A Kivasev, Alexey V Petraikin\",\"doi\":\"10.21037/qims-24-604\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Metal structures are a source of artifacts that significantly complicate the interpretation of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The use of prostate MRI as a preliminary test in men with a suspicion on prostate cancer leads to an increased use of the test. The aim of this study was to solve a clinically significant problem: to ensure the reduction of artifacts from metal hip implants during prostate MRI. Another goal was to evaluate the impact of artifact reduction methods on quantitative measurements.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The prostate gland (PG) phantom model was a cylinder filled with an aqueous solution of polyvinylpyrrolidone at the concentrations of 40%, 30%, and 20% [central zone (CZ), peripheral zone (PZ), and \\\"lesion\\\", respectively]. Phantom MRI study was conducted on Philips Ingenia 1.5T and Philips Ingenia 3T scanners.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>For 1.5 T, the reduction in the influence of artifacts inside region of interest (ROI) was observed, expressed in a decrease in the average apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) (CZ, PZ, \\\"lesion\\\") for the manual artifact reduction (MAR) and ZOOM (title of software artifact reduction) techniques compared to the standard method. For 3T this effect was not detected. The same ADC results were obtained for Standard and MAR techniques, and increased ADC values for ZOOM. Despite the fact that the spread of ADC values on 3.0T scanners was minimal, there was a significant deviation of ADC values from the reference ones (up to 30.4%). Therefore, it is necessary to use a correction coefficient in the ADC calculation for the 3.0 T device. In the presented clinical case, high-quality tomograms were obtained without any artifacts, despite the presence of two hip replacement devices in the scanning area.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The accurate prostate MRI in the presence of implants is essential for an accurate diagnosis. This approach allows to reduce artifacts from hip implants, to visualize PG and periprostatic tissue in the best way, and to detect malignant and benign changes.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54267,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Quantitative Imaging in Medicine and Surgery\",\"volume\":\"14 10\",\"pages\":\"7128-7137\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11485349/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Quantitative Imaging in Medicine and Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.21037/qims-24-604\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/9/26 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quantitative Imaging in Medicine and Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21037/qims-24-604","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/9/26 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
Prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in patients with hip implants-presetting a protocol using a phantom.
Background: Metal structures are a source of artifacts that significantly complicate the interpretation of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The use of prostate MRI as a preliminary test in men with a suspicion on prostate cancer leads to an increased use of the test. The aim of this study was to solve a clinically significant problem: to ensure the reduction of artifacts from metal hip implants during prostate MRI. Another goal was to evaluate the impact of artifact reduction methods on quantitative measurements.
Methods: The prostate gland (PG) phantom model was a cylinder filled with an aqueous solution of polyvinylpyrrolidone at the concentrations of 40%, 30%, and 20% [central zone (CZ), peripheral zone (PZ), and "lesion", respectively]. Phantom MRI study was conducted on Philips Ingenia 1.5T and Philips Ingenia 3T scanners.
Results: For 1.5 T, the reduction in the influence of artifacts inside region of interest (ROI) was observed, expressed in a decrease in the average apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) (CZ, PZ, "lesion") for the manual artifact reduction (MAR) and ZOOM (title of software artifact reduction) techniques compared to the standard method. For 3T this effect was not detected. The same ADC results were obtained for Standard and MAR techniques, and increased ADC values for ZOOM. Despite the fact that the spread of ADC values on 3.0T scanners was minimal, there was a significant deviation of ADC values from the reference ones (up to 30.4%). Therefore, it is necessary to use a correction coefficient in the ADC calculation for the 3.0 T device. In the presented clinical case, high-quality tomograms were obtained without any artifacts, despite the presence of two hip replacement devices in the scanning area.
Conclusions: The accurate prostate MRI in the presence of implants is essential for an accurate diagnosis. This approach allows to reduce artifacts from hip implants, to visualize PG and periprostatic tissue in the best way, and to detect malignant and benign changes.