Comparison of intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion-weighted imaging between turbo spin-echo and echo-planar imaging of the head and neck.

OBJECTIVES: To compare image quality, apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), and intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM)-derived parameters between turbo spin-echo (TSE)-diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) and echo-planar imaging (EPI)-DWI of the head and neck. METHODS: Fourteen volunteers underwent head and neck imaging using TSE-DWI and EPI-DWI. Distortion ratio (DR), signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), ADC and IVIM-derived parameters were compared between the two techniques. Bland-Altman analysis was performed to analyse reproducibility between the quantitative parameters of TSE-DWI and EPI-DWI. RESULTS: DR of TSE-DWI was significantly smaller than that of EPI-DWI. SNR and CNR of TSE-DWI were significantly higher than those of EPI-DWI. ADC and IVIM-derived parameters of TSE-DWI showed higher values than those of EPI-DWI, although the difference was not significant. Bland-Altman analysis showed wide limits of agreement between the two sequences. CONCLUSION: TSE-DWI can produce better image quality than EPI-DWI, while TSE-DWI possibly exhibits different values of quantitative parameters. Therefore, TSE-DWI could be a good alternative to EPI-DWI for patients sensitive to distortion. However, it is not recommended to use both TSE-DWI and EPI-DWI on follow-up. KEY POINTS: • Head and neck DWI is especially sensitive to magnetic inhomogeneity. • The distortion of images was less with TSE-DWI than with EPI-DWI. • TSE-DWI can possibly exhibit higher ADC and IVIM-derived parameters than EPI-DWI. • Bland-Altman analysis showed unacceptable LoA in quantitative analysis between TSE-DWI and EPI-DWI. • It is not recommended to use both TSE-DWI and EPI-DWI for follow-up.

[Verification of the protective effect of a testicular shield in postoperative radiotherapy for seminoma].

In postoperative radiotherapy for seminoma, control of the testicular absorbed dose is important, since exposure of the testis can lead to temporary or permanent infertility. In this case, instead of using a dog-leg-shaped field, treatment using a field focused near the aorta was provided in several disease stages of seminoma. However, the precise need for testicular shielding during treatment and dose of testis exposure was not clear. We examined these questions by measuring the testicular absorbed dose with and without a testicular shield using two clinical treatment plans and a phantom. The distance from the testis phantom and the lower end of the irradiation field was varied. Where the total dose for the tumor was 20 Gy, the testicular absorbed dose was below 0.1 Gy, the threshold dose for temporary infertility. At this dosage, the distance between the testis phantom and the edge of the irradiation field was 14.6 cm without the shield and 9.99 cm with the shield. Using a testes shield, it was thus possible to reduce the dose by 58.5%.