Search

Rationale and Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess (1) automated analysis methods versus manual evaluation by human experts of three-dimensional proton magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging (MRSI) data from patients with prostate cancer and (2) the contribution of spatial information to decision making. Materials and Methods: Three-dimensional proton MRSI was applied at 1.5 T. MRSI data from 10 patients with histologically proven prostate adenocarcinoma, scheduled either for prostatectomy or intensity-modulated radiation therapy, were evaluated. First, two readers manually labeled spectra using spatial information to identify the localization of spectra and neighborhood information, establishing the reference set of this study. Then, spectra were labeled again manually in a blinded and randomized manner and evaluated automatically using software that applied spectral line fitting as well as pattern recognition routines. Statistical analysis of the results of the different approaches was performed. Results: Altogether, 1018 spectra were evaluable by all methods. Numbers of evaluable spectra differed significantly depending on patient and evaluation method. Compared to automated analysis, the readers made rather binary decisions, using information from neighboring spectra in ambiguous cases, when evaluating MRSI data as a whole. Differences between anatomically blinded and unblinded evaluation were larger than differences between evaluations using blinded data and automated techniques. Conclusions: An automated approach, which evaluates each spectrum individually, can be as good as an anatomy-blinded human reader. Spatial information is routinely used by human experts to support their final decisions. Automated procedures that consider anatomic information for spectral evaluation will enhance the diagnostic impact of MRSI of the human prostate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Accurate assessment of lymph node (LN) metastases in prostate cancer (PCa) patients is critical for prognosis and patient management. Both prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) PET/CT and ferumoxtran-10 nanoparticle-enhanced MRI (nano-MRI) are imaging modalities with high potential to identify LN metastases in PCa patients. The aim of this study was to compare the results of these imaging technologies in terms of characteristics and anatomic localization of suspicious LNs in order to assess the feasibility of their complementary use for imaging in PCa patients. Methods: In total, 45 patients with either primary PCa ( n = 8) or recurrence ( n = 36) were included in this retrospective study. All patients underwent both 68 Ga-PSMA PET/CT and nano-MRI between October 2015 and July 2017 within 3 wk. Both scans were performed at the same institution according to local clinical protocols. All scans were analyzed independently by experienced nuclear medicine physicians and radiologists. The size, anatomic location, and level of suspicion were determined for all visible LNs. Subsequently, the findings from 68 Ga-PSMA PET/CT and nano-MRI were compared without respect to a reference standard. Results: In total, 179 suspicious LNs were identified. Significantly more suspicious LNs per patient were detected by nano-MRI ( P < 0.001): 160 were identified in 33 patients by nano-MRI, versus 71 in 25 patients by 68 Ga-PSMA PET/CT. Of all suspicious LNs, 108 were identified only by nano-MRI (60%), 19 (11%) only by 68 Ga-PSMA PET/CT, and 52 (29%) by both methods. The mean size of the suspicious LNs as identified by nano-MRI was significantly smaller (5.3 mm) than that by 68 Ga-PSMA PET/CT (6.0 mm; P = 0.006). The median level of suspicion did not differ significantly. Both modalities identified suspicious LNs in all anatomic regions of the pelvis. Conclusion: Both modalities identified suspicious LNs that were missed by the other. Both modalities identified suspicious LNs in all anatomic regions of the pelvis; however, nano-MRI appeared to be superior in detecting smaller suspicious LNs. These findings suggest that nano-MRI has a potential role as a complement to PSMA PET/CT. However, since the clinical implications of the different results are not well established yet, further investigation of this complementary use is encouraged., (© 2021 by the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.)