MRI of the lung (2/3). Why … when … how?

Background Among the modalities for lung imaging, proton magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has been the latest to be introduced into clinical practice. Its value to replace X-ray and computed tomography (CT) when radiation exposure or iodinated contrast material is contra-indicated is well acknowledged: i.e. for paediatric patients and pregnant women or for scientific use. One of the reasons why MRI of the lung is still rarely used, except in a few centres, is the lack of consistent protocols customised to clinical needs. Methods This article makes non-vendor-specific protocol suggestions for general use with state-of-the-art MRI scanners, based on the available literature and a consensus discussion within a panel of experts experienced in lung MRI. Results Various sequences have been successfully tested within scientific or clinical environments. MRI of the lung with appropriate combinations of these sequences comprises morphological and functional imaging aspects in a single examination. It serves in difficult clinical problems encountered in daily routine, such as assessment of the mediastinum and chest wall, and even might challenge molecular imaging techniques in the near future. Conclusion This article helps new users to implement appropriate protocols on their own MRI platforms. Main Messages • MRI of the lung can be readily performed on state-of-the-art 1.5-T MRI scanners. • Protocol suggestions based on the available literature facilitate its use for routine • MRI offers solutions for complicated thoracic masses with atelectasis and chest wall invasion. • MRI is an option for paediatrics and science when CT is contra-indicate

Review of potential improvements using MRI in the radiotherapy workflow

The goal of modern radiotherapy is to deliver a lethal amount of dose to tissue volumes that contain a significant amount of tumour cells while sparing surrounding unaffected or healthy tissue. Online image guided radiotherapy with stereotactic ultrasound, fiducial-based planar X-ray imaging or helical/conebeam CT has dramatically improved the precision of radiotherapy, with moving targets still posing some methodical problems regarding positioning. Therefore, requirements for precise target delineation and identification of functional body structures to be spared by high doses become more evident. The identification of areas of relatively radioresistant cells or areas of high tumor cell density is currently under development. This review outlines the state of the art of MRI integration into treatment planning and its importance in follow up and the quantification of biological effects. Finally the current state of the art of online imaging for patient positioning will be outlined and indications will be given what the potential of integrated radiotherapy/online MRI systems is

A Single-Arm, Multicenter Validation Study of Prostate Cancer Localization and Aggressiveness With a Quantitative Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging Approach.

Objectives: The aims of this study were to assess the discriminative performance of quantitative multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) between prostate cancer and noncancer tissues and between tumor grade groups (GGs) in a multicenter, single-vendor study, and to investigate to what extent site-specific differences affect variations in mpMRI parameters. Materials and Methods: Fifty patients with biopsy-proven prostate cancer from 5 institutions underwent a standardized preoperative mpMRI protocol. Based on the evaluation of whole-mount histopathology sections, regions of interest were placed on axial T2-weighed MRI scans in cancer and noncancer peripheral zone (PZ) and transition zone (TZ) tissue. Regions of interest were transferred to functional parameter maps, and quantitative parameters were extracted. Across-center variations in noncancer tissues, differences between tissues, and the relation to cancer grade groups were assessed using linear mixed-effects models and receiver operating characteristic analyses. Results: Variations in quantitative parameters were low across institutes (mean [maximum] proportion of total variance in PZ and TZ, 4% [14%] and 8% [46%], respectively). Cancer and noncancer tissues were best separated using the diffusion-weighted imaging-derived apparent diffusion coefficient, both in PZ and TZ (mean [95% confidence interval] areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUCs]; 0.93 [0.89–0.96] and 0.86 [0.75–0.94]), followed by MR spectroscopic imaging and dynamic contrast-enhanced-derived parameters. Parameters from all imaging methods correlated significantly with tumor grade group in PZ tumors. In discriminating GG1 PZ tumors from higher GGs, the highest AUC was obtained with apparent diffusion coefficient (0.74 [0.57–0.90], P < 0.001). The best separation of GG1–2 from GG3–5 PZ tumors was with a logistic regression model of a combination of functional parameters (mean AUC, 0.89 [0.78–0.98]). Conclusions: Standardized data acquisition and postprocessing protocols in prostate mpMRI at 3 T produce equivalent quantitative results across patients from multiple institutions and achieve similar discrimination between cancer and noncancer tissues and cancer grade groups as in previously reported singlecenter studies