RESUMO
PURPOSE: To develop and assess the diagnostic performance of a three-dimensional (3D) whole-body T1-weighted magnetic resonance (MR) imaging pulse sequence at 3.0 T for bone and node staging in patients with prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS This prospective study was approved by the institutional ethics committee; informed consent was obtained from all patients. Thirty patients with prostate cancer at high risk for metastases underwent whole-body 3D T1-weighted imaging in addition to the routine MR imaging protocol for node and/or bone metastasis screening, which included coronal two-dimensional (2D) whole-body T1-weighted MR imaging, sagittal proton-density fat-saturated (PDFS) imaging of the spine, and whole-body diffusion-weighted MR imaging. Two observers read the 2D and 3D images separately in a blinded manner for bone and node screening. Images were read in random order. The consensus review of MR images and the findings at prospective clinical and MR imaging follow-up at 6 months were used as the standard of reference. The interobserver agreement and diagnostic performance of each sequence were assessed on per-patient and per-lesion bases. RESULTS: The signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) were significantly higher with whole-body 3D T1-weighted imaging than with whole-body 2D T1-weighted imaging regardless of the reference region (bone or fat) and lesion location (bone or node) (P < .003 for all). For node metastasis, diagnostic performance (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve) was higher for whole-body 3D T1-weighted imaging (per-patient analysis; observer 1: P < .001 for 2D T1-weighted imaging vs 3D T1-weighted imaging, P = .006 for 2D T1-weighted imaging + PDFS imaging vs 3D T1-weighted imaging; observer 2: P = .006 for 2D T1-weighted imaging vs 3D T1-weighted imaging, P = .006 for 2D T1-weighted imaging + PDFS imaging vs 3D T1-weighted imaging), as was sensitivity (per-lesion analysis; observer 1: P < .001 for 2D T1-weighted imaging vs 3D T1-weighted imaging, P < .001 for 2D T1-weighted imaging + PDFS imaging vs 3D T1-weighted imaging; observer 2: P < .001 for 2D T1-weighted imaging vs 3D T1-weighted imaging, P < .001 for 2D T1-weighted imaging + PDFS imaging vs 3D T1-weighted imaging). CONCLUSION: Whole-body MR imaging is feasible with a 3D T1-weighted sequence and provides better SNR and CNR compared with 2D sequences, with a diagnostic performance that is as good or better for the detection of bone metastases and better for the detection of lymph node metastases.