Comparison of field-of-view (FOV) optimized and constrained undistorted single shot (FOCUS) with conventional DWI for the evaluation of prostate cancer

2015 ◽  
Vol 39 (5) ◽  
pp. 851-855 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhaoyan Feng ◽  
Xiangde Min ◽  
Vivek Kumar Sah ◽  
Liang Li ◽  
Jie Cai ◽  
...  
2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rui Sun ◽  
Christie Hunter ◽  
Chen Chen ◽  
Weigang Ge ◽  
Nick Morrice ◽  
...  

ABSTRACTWe report and evaluated a microflow, single-shot, short gradient SWATH MS method intended to accelerate the discovery and verification of protein biomarkers in clinical specimens. The method uses 15-min gradient microflow-LC peptide separation, an optimized SWATH MS window configuration and OpenSWATH software for data analysis.We applied the method to a cohort 204 of FFPE prostate tissue samples from 58 prostate cancer patients and 10 prostatic hyperplasia patients. Altogether we identified 27,976 proteotypic peptides and 4,043 SwissProt proteins from these 204 samples. Compared to a reference SWATH method with 2-hour gradient the accelerated method consumed only 27% instrument time, quantified 80% proteins and showed reduced batch effects. 3,800 proteins were quantified by both methods in two different instruments with relatively high consistency (r = 0.77). 75 proteins detected by the accelerated method with differential abundance between clinical groups were selected for further validation. A shortlist of 134 selected peptide precursors from the 75 proteins were analyzed using MRM-HR, exhibiting high quantitative consistency with the 15-min SWATH method (r = 0.89) in the same sample set. We further verified the capacity of these 75 proteins in separating benign and malignant tissues (AUC = 0.99) in an independent prostate cancer cohort (n=154).Overall our data show that the single-shot short gradient microflow-LC SWATH MS method achieved about 4-fold acceleration of data acquisition with reduced batch effect and a moderate level of protein attrition compared to a standard SWATH acquisition method. Finally, the results showed comparable ability to separate clinical groups.


2021 ◽  
pp. 20210465
Author(s):  
Tsutomu Tamada ◽  
Ayumu Kido ◽  
Yu Ueda ◽  
Mitsuru Takeuchi ◽  
Takeshi Fukunaga ◽  
...  

Objective: High b-value diffusion-weighted imaging (hDWI) with a b-value of 2000 s/mm2 provides insufficient image contrast between benign and malignant tissues and an overlap of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) between Gleason grades (GG) in prostate cancer (PC). We compared image quality, PC detectability, and discrimination ability for PC aggressiveness between ultra-high b-value DWI (uhDWI) of 3000 s/mm2 and hDWI. Methods: The subjects were 49 patients with PC who underwent 3T multiparametric MRI. Single-shot echo-planar DWI was acquired with b-values of 0, 2000, and 3000 s/mm2. Anatomical distortion of prostate (AD), signal intensity of benign prostate (PSI), and lesion conspicuity score (LCS) were assessed using a 4-point scale; and signal-to-noise ratio, contrast-to-noise ratio, and mean ADC (×10–3 mm2/s) of lesion (lADC) and surrounding benign region (bADC) were measured. Results: PSI was significantly lower in uhDWI than in hDWI (p < 0.001). AD, LCS, signal-to-noise ratio, and contrast-to-noise ratio were comparable between uhDWI and hDWI (all p > 0.05). In contrast, lADC was significantly lower than bADC in both uhDWI and hDWI (both p < 0.001). In comparison of lADC between tumors of ≤GG2 and those of ≥GG3, both uhDWI and hDWI showed significant difference (p = 0.007 and p = 0.021, respectively). AUC for separating tumors of ≤GG2 from those of ≥GG3 was 0.731 in hDWI and 0.699 in uhDWI (p = 0.161). Conclusion: uhDWI suppressed background signal better than hDWI, but did not contribute to increased diagnostic performance in PC. Advances in knowledge: Compared with hDWI, uhDWI could not contribute to increased diagnostic performance in PC.


2018 ◽  
Vol 56 ◽  
pp. 2 ◽  
Author(s):  
N. Koutsouvelis ◽  
G. Dipasquale ◽  
A. Dubouloz ◽  
M. Jaccard ◽  
R. Miralbell ◽  
...  

2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (5) ◽  
pp. 525-530 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fernando I. Yamauchi ◽  
Tobias Penzkofer ◽  
Andriy Fedorov ◽  
Fiona M. Fennessy ◽  
Renxin Chu ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 168-176 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ulrike I. Attenberger ◽  
Nils Rathmann ◽  
Metin Sertdemir ◽  
Philipp Riffel ◽  
Anja Weidner ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document