ObjectiveTo compare the effectiveness of magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) and Dynamic Contrast-enhancement (DCE-MRI) with 1.5 T MR scanner in diagnosing prostate cancer. MethodsFrom April 2011 to December 2012, based on the results of biopsy, we measured 216 regions of interest (ROIs) in images of MRS and DCE-MRI, comprised of 131 ROIs from cancer zone and 85 ROIs from non-cancer zone. The data were analyzed with statistical methods, including receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. ResultsThere were significant differences between the malignant group and the benign group (P<0.05) in Cit integral, Cho integral, CC/Cit ratio, the type of time-signal intensity curve, initial value, enhancement rate and ratio of enhancement. According to ROC curve, the area under curve (AUC) of CC/Cit and enhancement rate was 0.853 and 0.719, respectively. AUC of time to peak, time difference, enhancement rate and Cit integral was lower than 0.400. The optimal operating point (OOP) of CC/Cit was 0.775, with a specificity of 0.85 and a sensitivity of 0.79, and the AUC was 0.853. The OOP of the ratio of enhancement was 60.89, with a specificity of 0.66 and a sensitivity of 0.71, and the AUC was 0.719. ConclusionMRS is more sensitive and specific than DCE-MRI to diagnose prostate cancer when an 1.5 T MR scanner is used. On the other hand, MRS is susceptible to interference, but DCE-MRI can make up for these deficiencies.
ObjectiveTo compare the effectiveness of T2 weighted image (T2WI) and some compounded MRI techniques, including T2WI combined with magnetic resonance spectroscopy (T2WI+MRS), T2WI combined with diffusion weighted imaging (T2WI+DWI) and T2WI combined with dynamic contrast-enhancement [T2WI+(DCE-MRI)] respectively, with 1.5 T MR scanner in diagnosing prostate cancer through a blinding method. MethodsBetween March 2011 and April 2013, two observers diagnosed 59 cases with a blinding method. The research direction of radiologist A was to diagnose prostate cancer. The observers diagnosed and scored the cases with T2WI, T2WI+(DCE-MRI), T2WI+MRS, T2WI+DWI and compositive method respectively. The data were statistically analyzed with receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. ResultsAccording to the ROC curve, both observers got the sequence of area under curve (AUC) as T2WI+DWI > T2WI+(DCE-MRI) > T2WI+MRS > T2WI. On the basis of the result from observer A, the AUC from each technique was similar. The AUC of T2+DWI was slightly bigger than others. The specificity of single T2WI was the lowest; the sensitivity of T2WI was slightly higher. The AUC of the compositive method was marginally larger than T2WI+DWI. According to the result from observer B, the AUC of T2WI+DWI was obviously larger than the others. The AUC of single T2WI was much smaller than the other techniques. The single T2WI method had the lowest sensitivity and the highest specificity. The AUC of T2WI+DWI was slightly larger than the compositive method. The AUC of T2WI+(DCE-MRI), T2WI+MRS, single T2WI methods from observer A was obviously higher than those from the score of observer B. The AUC of T2WI+DWI from the two observers was similar. ConclusionThe method of combined T2WI and functional imaging sequences can improve the diagnosing specificity when a 1.5 T MR scanner is used. T2WI+DWI is the best method in diagnosing prostate cancer with least influence from the experience of observers in this research. The compositive method can improve the diagnosis of prostate cancer effectively, but when there are contradictions between different methods, the T2WI+DWI should be considered as a key factor.