Share this content in WeChat
Clinical Articles
Application of magnetization transfer imaging combined with DWI and T2WI in diagnosis and grading of prostate cancer
AI Guangyong  QIAO Xiaofeng  SHU Xin  LIU Yunfan  LI Xin  NIU Shengwen  HUANG Xin  FANG Jing  ZHANG Rong  HE Xiaojing 

Cite this article as: AI G Y, QIAO X F, SHU X, et al. Application of magnetization transfer imaging combined with DWI and T2WI in diagnosis and grading of prostate cancer[J]. Chin J Magn Reson Imaging, 2023, 14(7): 86-92. DOI:10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2023.07.015.

[Abstract] Objective To determine the value of magnetization transfer imaging (MTI) in diagnosing prostate cancer (PCa) and assessing the histologic grade.Materials and Methods This study was conducted prospectively. A total of 134 patients with clinical suspicion of PCa underwent biparametric MRI with magnetization transfer (MTr) technology, and followed by biopsy or radical prostatectomy. According to the results of pathologic diagnosis, all patients were divided into two groups PCa and benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). The patients in PCa group were divided into low- and high score groups (Ls group and Hs group) based on the new Gleason grade groups (GGG) system. The feasibility of MTr in prostate imaging is evaluated. The magnetization transfer ratio (MTR) were compared between the PCa group and BPH group, and prior to the different grade in PCa group. The efficacy of T2WI and diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) sequences with or without MTr pulse in the diagnosis of PCa and the stratification of low- or high-grade PCa was compared.Results After applying MTr technology, the image quality of T2WI and DWI images were optimized. There was high consistency of MTR measure between intraobserver and interobserver. After MTr pulse was applied to DWI sequence, the diagnostic efficacy of PCa (pre-MTr AUC=0.779, post-MTr AUC=0.850) and the differentiation of Ls and Hs (pre-sMTr AUC=0.697, post-MTr AUC=0.818) were effectively improved. Measured the MTR between BPH and PCa group, a significant difference between groups was found in the DWI sequence trial (t=-1.85, P=0.06), but not in the T2 sequence trial (t=-3.39, P=0.01). Measured the MTR between Ls group and Hs group, a statistically insignificant difference was found in the T2WI sequence trial (t=-0.53, P=0.59), but not in the DWI sequence trial (t=3.42, P=0.01).Conclusions MTI can improve the performance for the PCa detect and identify high grade lesions, especially the MTR in DWI sequence showed great potential in diagnosing and grading PCa.
[Keywords] prostate;benign prostatic hyperplasia;prostate cancer;magnetic resonance imaging;magnetization transfer;gleason grade groups;classification

AI Guangyong1, 2   QIAO Xiaofeng1, 2   SHU Xin1, 2   LIU Yunfan1, 2   LI Xin1, 2   NIU Shengwen1, 2   HUANG Xin1, 2   FANG Jing1, 2   ZHANG Rong1, 2   HE Xiaojing1, 2*  

1 Department of Radiology, the Second Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing 400010, China

2 The Second Clinical College of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing 400010, China

Corresponding author: He XJ, E-mail:

Conflicts of interest   None.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Science and Health Joint Medical Research Project of Chongqing (No. 2019GDRC011).
Received  2022-09-01
Accepted  2023-06-28
DOI: 10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2023.07.015
Cite this article as: AI G Y, QIAO X F, SHU X, et al. Application of magnetization transfer imaging combined with DWI and T2WI in diagnosis and grading of prostate cancer[J]. Chin J Magn Reson Imaging, 2023, 14(7): 86-92. DOI:10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2023.07.015.

Prostate Cancer Group of Urogenital Cancer Committee of Chinese Anti-Cancer Association. China expert consensus on prostate cancer screening (2021 edition)[J]. China Oncol, 2021, 31(5): 435-440. DOI: 10.19401/j.cnki.1007-3639.2021.05.010.
HAN S J, LIU F, XING N Z. Trend analysis of the incidence of prostate cancer in cancer registration areas of China between 1988 and 2015[J]. Chin J Urol, 2022, 43(1): 51-55. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn112330-20210126-00048.
BAKSHI A, RIAZ M, ORCHARD S G, et al. A polygenic risk score predicts incident prostate cancer risk in older men but does not select for clinically significant disease[J/OL]. Cancers, 2021, 13(22): 5815 [2022-09-03]. DOI: 10.3390/cancers13225815.
BABOUDJIAN M, ROUMIGUIÉ M, PELTIER A, et al. Grade group 1 prostate cancer on biopsy: are we still missing aggressive disease in the era of image-directed therapy?[J]. World J Urol, 2022, 40(10): 2423-2429. DOI: 10.1007/s00345-022-04130-z.
MENG L Y, LI Y, REN J, et al. Early stage biomarkers screening of prostate cancer based on weighted gene coexpression network analysis[J]. DNA Cell Biol, 2019, 38(5): 468-475. DOI: 10.1089/dna.2018.4406.
ORTNER G, TZANAKI E, RAI B P, et al. Transperineal prostate biopsy: the modern gold standard to prostate cancer diagnosis[J]. Turk J Urol, 2021, 47(Supp. 1): S19-S26. DOI: 10.5152/tud.2020.20358.
CAI Q Y, DING Y Y, CHEN J Z, et al. Clinical value of transperineal prostate biopsy guided by abdominal probe[J]. Chin J Ultrasound Med, 2021, 37(6): 692-694. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-0101.2021.06.029.
KANG Y, HONG N, WU B. Study of inhomogeneous magnetization transfer imaging in multiple sclerosis[J]. Chin J Med Imaging Technol, 2019, 35(7): 981-984. DOI: 10.13929/j.1003-3289.201901082.
ALSOP D C, ERCAN E C, GIRARD O M, et al. Inhomogeneous magnetization transfer imaging: concepts and directions for further development[J/OL]. NMR Biomed, 2023, 36(6): e4808 [2022-09-03]. DOI: 10.1002/nbm.4808.
LOEB S, FOLKVALJON Y, ROBINSON D, et al. Evaluation of the 2015 gleason grade groups in a nationwide population-based cohort[J]. Eur Urol, 2016, 69(6): 1135-1141. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.11.036.
BRAY F, FERLAY J, SOERJOMATARAM I, et al. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries[J]. CA Cancer J Clin, 2018, 68(6): 394-424. DOI: 10.3322/caac.21492.
Prostate Cancer Alliance of Urology Society of Chinese Medical Association. Expert consensus on early diagnosis of prostate cancer in China[J]. Chin J Urol, 2015, 36(8): 561-564. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1000-6702.2015.08.001.
WOLFF S D, BALABAN R S. Magnetization transfer contrast (MTC) and tissue water proton relaxation in vivo[J]. Magn Reson Med, 1989, 10(1): 135-144. DOI: 10.1002/mrm.1910100113.
CALVI A, TUR C, CHARD D, et al. Slowly expanding lesions relate to persisting black-holes and clinical outcomes in relapse-onset multiple sclerosis[J/OL]. Neuroimage Clin, 2022, 35: 103048 [2022-09-03]. DOI: 10.1016/j.nicl.2022.103048.
NING Q P, WANG W S, ZHAO N, et al. DWI combined with magnetization transfer imaging in the diagnosis of sacroiliitis activity in ankylosing spondylitis[J]. Radiol Pract, 2020, 35(4): 525-531. DOI: 10.13609/j.cnki.1000-0313.2020.04.024.
Matsumura Y, Kasai Y, Obata H, et al. Changes in water content of intervertebral discs and paravertebral muscles before and after bed rest[J]. J Orthop Sci, 2009, 14(1): 45-50. DOI: 10.1007/s00776-008-1288-5.
HAIDER L, PRADOS F, CHUNG K, et al. Cortical involvement determines impairment 30 years after a clinically isolated syndrome[J]. Brain, 2021, 144(5): 1384-1395. DOI: 10.1093/brain/awab033.
HE J L, GAO Y, LI B, et al. The application value of DCE-MRI combined MTI in the grading and infiltration of intracerebral glioma[J]. J Clin Radiol, 2021, 40(4): 651-655. DOI: 10.16780/j.cnki.sjssgncj.2020.01.018.
KIM D, EISENMENGER L, TURSKI P, et al. Simultaneous 3D-TOF angiography and 4D-flow MRI with enhanced flow signal using multiple overlapping thin slab acquisition and magnetization transfer[J]. Magn Reson Med, 2022, 87(3): 1401-1417. DOI: 10.1002/mrm.29155.
DUAN W N, SEHRAWAT P, ZHOU T D, et al. Pattern of altered magnetization transfer rate in alzheimer's disease[J]. J Alzheimers Dis, 2022, 88(2): 693-705. DOI: 10.3233/JAD-220335.
TURKBEY B, ROSENKRANTZ A B, HAIDER M A, et al. Prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2.1: 2019 update of prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2[J]. Eur Urol, 2019, 76(3): 340-351. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.02.033.
GONG L X, XU M, FANG M J, et al. Noninvasive prediction of high-grade prostate cancer via biparametric MRI radiomics[J]. J Magn Reson Imaging, 2020, 52(4): 1102-1109. DOI: 10.1002/jmri.27132.
EPSTEIN J I, ZELEFSKY M J, SJOBERG D D, et al. A contemporary prostate cancer grading system: a validated alternative to the gleason score[J]. Eur Urol, 2016, 69(3): 428-435. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.06.046.
KUMAR V, JAGANNATHAN N R, KUMAR R, et al. Evaluation of the role of magnetization transfer imaging in prostate: a preliminary study[J]. Magn Reson Imaging, 2008, 26(5): 644-649. DOI: 10.1016/j.mri.2008.01.030.
BARRETT T, MCLEAN M, PRIEST A N, et al. Diagnostic evaluation of magnetization transfer and diffusion kurtosis imaging for prostate cancer detection in a re-biopsy population[J]. Eur Radiol, 2018, 28(8): 3141-3150. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-017-5169-1.
VIROSTKO J, SORACE A G, WU C Y, et al. Magnetization transfer MRI of breast cancer in the community setting: reproducibility and preliminary results in neoadjuvant therapy[J]. Tomography, 2019, 5(1): 44-52. DOI: 10.18383/j.tom.2018.00019.
ROMERO I O, SINHA U. Magnetization transfer saturation imaging of human calf muscle: Reproducibility and sensitivity to regional and sex differences[J]. J Magn Reson Imaging, 2019, 50(4): 1227-1237. DOI: 10.1002/jmri.26694.
VARGHESE B, CHEN F, HWANG D, et al. Objective risk stratification of prostate cancer using machine learning and radiomics applied to multiparametric magnetic resonance images[J/OL]. Sci Rep, 2019, 9(1): 1570 [2022-09-03]. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-38381-x.
LIN J J, LU B L, WANG H L, et al. Magnetization transfer MR imaging for predicting intestinal fistula in patients with crohn disease[J]. J Sun Yat-sen Univ: Medical Edition, 2019(1): 130-135. DOI: 10.13471/j.cnki.j.sun.yat-sen.univ(med.sci).2019.0018.
GUGLIELMI G, MUSCARELLA S, BAZZOCCHI A. Integrated imaging approach to osteoporosis: state-of-the-art review and update[J]. Radiographics, 2011, 31(5): 1343-1364. DOI: 10.1148/rg.315105712.
TAN H, YANG Z, FAN Q J, et al. The value of magnetization transfer imaging in the evaluation of primary osteoporosis[J]. Chin Comput Med Imaging, 2022, 28(1): 68-72. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-5741.2022.01.014.
MEHRABIAN H, MYREHAUG S, SOLIMAN H, et al. Quantitative magnetization transfer in monitoring glioblastoma (GBM) response to therapy[J/OL]. Sci Rep, 2018, 8: 2475 [2022-09-03]. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-20624-6.

PREV The value of the apparent diffusion coefficient in preoperative prediction of myometrial infiltration, Ki-67 and P53 expression levels in endometrial carcinoma
NEXT The value of apparent diffusion coefficient minimum in differential diagnosis of early prostate cancer and chronic prostatitis in peripheral zone

Tel & Fax: +8610-67113815    E-mail: