scholarly journals Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging (WB-MRI) with diffusion-weighted whole-body imaging with background body signal suppression (DWIBS) in prostate cancer: Prevalence and clinical significance of incidental findings

2021 ◽  
pp. 20210459
Author(s):  
Soma Kumasaka ◽  
Shunichi Motegi ◽  
Yuka Kumasaka ◽  
Tatsuya Nishikata ◽  
Masami Otomo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Incidental Findings ◽  
Whole Body ◽  
Whole Body Imaging ◽  
Resonance Imaging ◽  
Body Imaging ◽  
Signal Suppression ◽  
Body Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
Clinically Significant

Objective: Diffusion-weighted whole-body imaging with background body signal suppression (DWIBS) is now recommended as a first-line staging modality in prostate cancer patients, and the widespread use of DWIBS may lead to an increased frequency of incidental findings. The aim of this study was to evaluate the prevalence and clinical significance of incidental findings on whole-body magnetic resonance imaging (WB-MRI) with DWIBS. Methods: Data from 124 patients with prostate cancer (age, 76.5 ± 5.6 years), who underwent 1.5 T WB-MRI with STIR, TSE-T2, TSE-T1, In/Out GRE, and DWIBS sequences, were retrospectively analyzed. Findings unrelated to prostate cancer were considered as incidental findings and categorized into two groups based on their clinical implications, as follow: imaging follow-up or additional examinations was required (significant incidental findings) and no need to additional work-up (non-significant incidental findings). A Chi-square test was performed to compare the differences in the prevalence of significant incidental findings based on age (≤75 and>75 years old). Results: A total of 334 incidental findings were found, with 8.1% (n = 27) as significant incidental findings. Significant incidental findings were more frequent in patients over 75 years old than those of 75 years old or younger (28.6% vs  11.1%, p = 0.018). Conclusion: Clinically significant incidental findings, which required imaging follow-up or additional examinations, were commonly observed in prostate cancer patients on WB-MRI/DWIBS. Advances in knowledge: Some incidental findings were clinically significant which may lead to changes in treatment strategy. Checking the entire organ carefully for abnormalities, and reporting any incidental findings detected are important.

scholarly journals Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging (WB-MRI) with diffusion-weighted whole-body imaging with background body signal suppression (DWIBS) in prostate cancer: Prevalence and clinical significance of incidental findings

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Soma Kumasaka ◽  
Shunichi Motegi ◽  
Yuka Kumasaka ◽  
Tatsuya Nishikata ◽  
Masami Otomo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Incidental Findings ◽  
Whole Body ◽  
Whole Body Imaging ◽  
Resonance Imaging ◽  
Body Imaging ◽  
Signal Suppression ◽  
Body Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Abstract Background Diffusion-weighted whole-body imaging with background body signal suppression (DWIBS) is now recommended as a first-line staging modality in prostate cancer patients, and the widespread use of DWIBS may lead to an increased frequency of incidental findings. The aim of this study is to evaluate the prevalence and clinical significance of incidental findings detected on whole-body magnetic resonance imaging (WB-MRI) with DWIBS in patients with prostate cancer. Methods Data from 124 patients (age, 76.5 ± 5.6 years; range, 60–90) with pathologically confirmed prostate cancer, who underwent WB-MRI between December 2016 and April 2020, were retrospectively analyzed. Findings unrelated to prostate cancer were considered as incidental findings and categorized into two groups based on their clinical implications, as follow: imaging follow-up or additional examinations was required (significant incidental findings) and no need to additional work-up (non-significant incidental findings). A Chi-square test was performed to compare the differences in the prevalence of significant incidental findings based on age (≤ 75 and > 75 years old). Results A total of 334 incidental findings were found, with 8.1% (n = 27) as significant incidental findings and 91.9% (n = 307) as non-significant incidental findings. Significant incidental findings were more frequent in patients over 75 years old than those of 75 years old or younger (28.6% vs 11.1%, p = 0.018). Nineteen of the 27 significant incidental findings (70.4%) were observed on non-DWIBS sequences. Conclusion Clinically significant incidental findings, which required imaging follow-up or additional examinations, were commonly observed in patients with prostate cancer on WB-MRI/DWIBS.

scholarly journals Diffusion Weighted Whole Body Imaging with Background Body Signal Suppression (DWIBS) Was Useful for the Diagnosis and Follow-up of Giant Cell Arteritis

2019 ◽  
Vol 58 (14) ◽  
pp. 2095-2099
Author(s):  
Hidetoshi Matsuoka ◽  
Yuji Yoshida ◽  
Eri Oguro ◽  
Atsuko Murata ◽  
Kentaro Kuzuya ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Giant Cell Arteritis ◽  
Giant Cell ◽  
Whole Body ◽  
Whole Body Imaging ◽  
Body Imaging ◽  
Diffusion Weighted ◽  
Signal Suppression

scholarly journals P2.11-21 Usefulness of Diffusion-Weighted Whole-Body Imaging with Background Suppression in the Postoperative Follow-up Period

2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (10) ◽  
pp. S800
Author(s):  
K. Suemori ◽  
M. Kataoka ◽  
D. Okutani ◽  
T. Fujita ◽  
I. Togami ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Whole Body ◽  
Background Suppression ◽  
Whole Body Imaging ◽  
Body Imaging ◽  
Diffusion Weighted

scholarly journals Diffusion-weighted whole-body imaging with background body signal suppression/T2-weighted image fusion of gastrointestinal cancers

2016 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 44-48 ◽  
Author(s):  
MINORU TOMIZAWA ◽  
FUMINOBU SHINOZAKI ◽  
KAZUNORI FUGO ◽  
TAKAFUMI SUNAOSHI ◽  
DAISUKE KANO ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Image Fusion ◽  
Whole Body ◽  
Whole Body Imaging ◽  
Gastrointestinal Cancers ◽  
Body Imaging ◽  
Weighted Image ◽  
Diffusion Weighted ◽  
Signal Suppression

scholarly journals Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging (WB-MRI) reporting with the METastasis Reporting and Data System for Prostate Cancer (MET-RADS-P): inter-observer agreement between readers of different expertise levels

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Paola Pricolo ◽  
Eleonora Ancona ◽  
Paul Summers ◽  
Jorge Abreu-Gomez ◽  
Sarah Alessi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Metastatic Disease ◽  
Observer Agreement ◽  
Whole Body ◽  
Lumbosacral Spine ◽  
Resonance Imaging ◽  
Body Regions ◽  
Body Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Abstract Background The METastasis Reporting and Data System for Prostate Cancer (MET-RADS-P) guidelines are designed to enable reproducible assessment in detecting and quantifying metastatic disease response using whole-body magnetic resonance imaging (WB-MRI) in patients with advanced prostate cancer (APC). The purpose of our study was to evaluate the inter-observer agreement of WB-MRI examination reports produced by readers of different expertise when using the MET-RADS-P guidelines. Methods Fifty consecutive paired WB-MRI examinations, performed from December 2016 to February 2018 on 31 patients, were retrospectively examined to compare reports by a Senior Radiologist (9 years of experience in WB-MRI) and Resident Radiologist (after a 6-months training) using MET-RADS-P guidelines, for detection and for primary/dominant and secondary response assessment categories (RAC) scores assigned to metastatic disease in 14 body regions. Inter-observer agreement regarding RAC score was evaluated for each region by using weighted-Cohen’s Kappa statistics (K). Results The number of metastatic regions reported by the Senior Radiologist (249) and Resident Radiologist (251) was comparable. For the primary/dominant RAC pattern, the agreement between readers was excellent for the metastatic findings in cervical, dorsal, and lumbosacral spine, pelvis, limbs, lungs and other sites (K:0.81–1.0), substantial for thorax, retroperitoneal nodes, other nodes and liver (K:0.61–0.80), moderate for pelvic nodes (K:0.56), fair for primary soft tissue and not assessable for skull due to the absence of findings. For the secondary RAC pattern, agreement between readers was excellent for the metastatic findings in cervical spine (K:0.93) and retroperitoneal nodes (K:0.89), substantial for those in dorsal spine, pelvis, thorax, limbs and pelvic nodes (K:0.61–0.80), and moderate for lumbosacral spine (K:0.44). Conclusions We found inter-observer agreement between two readers of different expertise levels to be excellent in bone, but mixed in other body regions. Considering the importance of bone metastases in patients with APC, our results favor the use of MET-RADS-P in response to the growing clinical need for monitoring of metastasis in these patients.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document