Fine focal spot size improves image quality in computed tomography abdomen and pelvis.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the image quality between fine focal spot size (FFSS) and standard focal spot size (SFSS) in computed tomography of the abdomen and pelvis (CTAP) METHODS: This retrospective review included all consecutive adult patients undergoing contrast-enhanced CTAP between June and September 2014. Two blinded radiologists assessed the margin clarity of the abdominal viscera and the detected lesions using a five-point grading scale. Cohen's kappa test was used to examine the inter-observer reliability between the two reviewers for organ margin clarity. Mann-Whitney U testing was utilised to assess the statistical difference of the organ and lesion margin clarity. RESULTS: 100 consecutive CTAPs were recruited. 52 CTAPs were examined with SFSS of 1.1 × 1.2 mm and 48 CTAPs were examined with FFSS of 0.6 × 0.7 mm. Results showed that there was substantial agreement for organ margin clarity (mean κ = 0.759, p < 0.001) among the reviewers. FFSS produces images with clearer organ margins (U = 76194.0, p < 0.001, r = 0.523) and clearer lesion margins (U = 239, p = 0.052, r = 0.269). CONCLUSION: FFSS CTAP improves image quality in terms of better organ and lesion margin clarity. Fine focus CT scanning is a novel technique that may be applied in routine CTAP imaging. KEY POINTS: • Fine focal spot improves organ margin clarity. • Fine focal spot improves lesion margin clarity. • Fine focal spot can be used in routine CT abdominal imaging.

Comparison of [(11)C]choline Positron Emission Tomography With T2- and Diffusion-Weighted Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Delineating Malignant Intraprostatic Lesions.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of [(11)C]choline positron emission tomography (CHOL-PET) with that of the combination of T2-weighted and diffusion-weighted (T2W/DW) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for delineating malignant intraprostatic lesions (IPLs) for guiding focal therapies and to investigate factors predicting the accuracy of CHOL-PET. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This study included 21 patients who underwent CHOL-PET and T2W/DW MRI prior to radical prostatectomy. Two observers manually delineated IPL contours for each scan, and automatic IPL contours were generated on CHOL-PET based on varying proportions of the maximum standardized uptake value (SUV). IPLs identified on prostatectomy specimens defined reference standard contours. The imaging-based contours were compared with the reference standard contours using Dice similarity coefficient (DSC), and sensitivity and specificity values. Factors that could potentially predict the DSC of the best contouring method were analyzed using linear models. RESULTS: The best automatic contouring method, 60% of the maximum SUV (SUV60) , had similar correlations (DSC: 0.59) with the manual PET contours (DSC: 0.52, P=.127) and significantly better correlations than the manual MRI contours (DSC: 0.37, P<.001). The sensitivity and specificity values were 72% and 71% for SUV60; 53% and 86% for PET manual contouring; and 28% and 92% for MRI manual contouring. The tumor volume and transition zone pattern could independently predict the accuracy of CHOL-PET. CONCLUSIONS: CHOL-PET is superior to the combination of T2W/DW MRI for delineating IPLs. The accuracy of CHOL-PET is insufficient for gland-sparing focal therapies but may be accurate enough for focal boost therapies. The transition zone pattern is a new classification that may predict how well CHOL-PET delineates IPLs.

Diffusion-weighted MRI, 11C-choline PET and 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose PET for predicting the Gleason score in prostate carcinoma.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the accuracy of transrectal ultrasound-guided (TRUS) biopsy, diffusion-weighted (DW) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), (11)C-choline (CHOL) positron emission tomography (PET), and (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET in predicting the prostatectomy Gleason risk (GR). METHODS: The study included 21 patients who underwent TRUS biopsy and multi-technique imaging before radical prostatectomy. Values from five different tests (TRUS biopsy, DW MRI, CHOL PET, FDG PET, and combined DW MRI/CHOL PET) were correlated with the prostatectomy GR using Spearman's ρ. Tests that were found to have significant correlations were used to classify patients into GR groups. RESULTS: The following tests had significant correlations with prostatectomy GR: TRUS biopsy (ρ = 0.617, P = 0.003), DW MRI (ρ = -0.601, P = 0.004), and combined DW MRI/CHOL PET (ρ = -0.623, P = 0.003). CHOL PET alone and FDG PET only had weak correlations. The correct GR classification rates were 67% with TRUS biopsy, 67% with DW MRI, and 76% with combined DW MRI/CHOL PET. CONCLUSIONS: DW MRI and combined DW MRI/CHOL PET have significant correlations and high rates of correct classification of the prostatectomy GR, the strength and accuracy of which are comparable with TRUS biopsy. KEY POINTS: • Accurate determination of the Gleason score is essential for prostate cancer management. • DW MRI ± CHOL PET correlated significantly with prostatectomy Gleason score. • These correlations are similar to that between TRUS biopsy and prostatectomy.