Abdominal Radiology

, Volume 44, Issue 10, pp 3432–3440 | Cite as

Validation of SE-EPI-based T2 mapping for characterization of prostate cancer: a new method compared with the traditional CPMG method

  • Zan Ke
  • Xu Yan
  • Xiangde Min
  • Wei Cai
  • Peipei Zhang
  • Huijuan You
  • Chanyuan Fan
  • Liang WangEmail author



We aim to compare the results of spin echo–echo planar imaging (SE-EPI)-based T2 mapping with those of the conventional Carr–Purcell–Meiboom–Gill (CPMG) method and to investigate the potential validity of SE-EPI-T2 mapping for the characterization of prostate cancer (PCa).


Our retrospective study included 42 PCa patients and 42 noncancer patients who underwent 3.0T MRI with b values ranging from 0 to 2000 s/mm2 and echo times (TEs) ranging from 32 to 100 ms before biopsies. Bland–Altman analysis was used to compare the agreement between the two methods. The correlations between CPMG-T2 values and SE-EPI-T2 values at different b values were determined by Spearman’s rho analysis or Pearson analysis. The Mann–Whitney U test and two-sample t tests were used to analyze the differences between the cancerous and noncancerous groups.


Substantial agreement regarding the measurements was observed between the two methods. The average correlation between the CPMG-T2 values and SE-EPI-T2 values was moderate and positive, and the best correlations were found at b = 200 s/mm2 in the noncancer group (r = 0.557, P = 0.000) and at b = 100 s/mm2 in the cancer group (r = 0.537, P = 0.000). In addition, statistically significant differences were found between the noncancer and cancer groups in T2 values and ADC values (diff TEs) (P = 0.000).


Substantial agreement in the measurements was found between the SE-EPI method and CPMG method. SE-EPI-based T2 mapping has potential clinical value for the prostate and can be considered an alternative to the traditional CPMG-T2 mapping method.


Diffusion magnetic resonance imaging Echo planar imaging Magnetic resonance imaging Prostate cancer T2 mapping 



We thank Xu Yan and his team from the MR Collaboration NE Asia, Siemens Healthcare, for providing the scan guide and settings.


This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) [Grant Numbers 81671656 and 81171307].

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Xu Yan is an employee of Siemens Healthcare but had no control over the inclusion of any data or information that might have presented a conflict of interest. There are no actual or potential conflicts of interest to declare in relation to this article. None of the other authors have conflicts of interest or specific financial interests relevant to the subject of this article.


  1. 1.
    Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. (2018) Cancer statistics, 2018. CA Cancer J Clin 1:7-30. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mazaheri Y, Shukla-Dave A, Muellner A, Hricak H. (2011) MRI of the prostate: clinical relevance and emerging applications. J Magn Reson Imaging 2:258-274. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Turkbey B, Choyke PL. (2012) Multiparametric MRI and prostate cancer diagnosis and risk stratification. Curr Opin Urol 4:310-315. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lin WC, Westphalen AC, Silva GE, Chodraui Filho S, Reis RB, Muglia VF. (2016) Comparison of PI-RADS 2, ADC histogram-derived parameters, and their combination for the diagnosis of peripheral zone prostate cancer. Abdom Radiol (NY) 11:2209-2217. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, Choyke P, Verma S, Villeirs G, et al. (2012) ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 22:746-757. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, Cornud F, Haider MA, Macura KJ, et al. (2016) PI-RADS Prostate Imaging - Reporting and Data System: 2015, Version 2. Eur Radiol 69:16-40. Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hoang Dinh A, Souchon R, Melodelima C, Bratan F, Mège-Lechevallier F, Colombel M, et al. (2015) Characterization of prostate cancer using T2 mapping at 3T: a multi-scanner study. Diagn Interv Imaging 4:365-372. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Katsube T, Okada M, Kumano S, Imaoka I, Kagawa Y, Hori M, et al. (2012) Estimation of liver function using T2* mapping on gadolinium ethoxybenzyl diethylenetriamine pentaacetic acid enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Eur J Radiol 7:1460-1464. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    MacKay A, Whittall K, Adler J, Li D, Paty D, Graeb D. (1994) In vivo visualization of myelin water in brain by magnetic resonance. Magn Reson Med 6:673-677. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ghugre NR, Ramanan V, Pop M, Yang Y, Barry J, Qiang B, et al. (2011) Myocardial BOLD imaging at 3 T using quantitative T2: application in a myocardial infarct model. Magn Reson Med 6:1739-1747. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hada S, Ishijima M, Kaneko H, Kinoshita M, Liu L, Sadatsuki R, et al. (2017) Association of medial meniscal extrusion with medial tibial osteophyte distance detected by T2 mapping MRI in patients with early-stage knee osteoarthritis. Arthritis Res Ther 1:201. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kim HK, Laor T, Horn PS, Racadio JM, Wong B, Dardzinski BJ. (2010) T2 mapping in Duchenne muscular dystrophy: distribution of disease activity and correlation with clinical assessments. Radiology 3:899-908. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Carter JS, Koopmeiners JS, Kuehn-Hajder JE, Metzger GJ, Lakkadi N, Downs LS Jr, et al. (2013) Quantitative multiparametric MRI of ovarian cancer. J Magn Reson Imaging 6:1501-1509. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Liney GP, Knowles AJ, Manton DJ, Turnbull LW, Blackband SJ, Horsman A. (1996) Comparison of conventional single echo and multi-echo sequences with a fast spin-echo sequence for quantitative T2 mapping: application to the prostate. J Magn Reson Imaging 4:603-607. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Glaser C. (2005) New techniques for cartilage imaging: T2 relaxation time and diffusion-weighted MR imaging. Radiol Clin North Am 4:641-653, vii. Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wang S, Peng Y, Medved M, Yousuf AN, Ivancevic MK, Karademir I, et al. (2014) Hybrid multidimensional T(2) and diffusion-weighted MRI for prostate cancer detection. J Magn Reson Imaging 4:781-788. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Yan X, Ke Z, Zhou MX, Fu CX, Min XD, Wang L. (2017) Application of fast SE-EPI-based T2 mapping in prostate, with comparison to conventional CPMG-based T2 mapping. Proceedings of the 25th Annual Meeting of ISMRM; 2017 Apr 22-27; Honolulu, Hawaii, United States. Concord (CA): ISMRM Press; 2017. Abstract: 3418.
  18. 18.
    Zhou MX, Ke Z, Min XD, Wang L, Ma C, Yan X. (2017) Validation of fast SE-EPI T2 mapping with reference to conventional CPMG T2 mapping, and its application in prostate cancer. Proceedings of the 10th International Congress on Image and Signal Processing, BioMedical Engineering and Informatics (CISP-BMEI); 2017 Oct 14-16; Shanghai, China. New York (NY): IEEE Press; 2018. Pages: 1-5.
  19. 19.
    Barbieri S, Bronnimann M, Boxler S, Vermathen P, Thoeny HC. (2017) Differentiation of prostate cancer lesions with high and with low Gleason score by diffusion-weighted MRI. Eur Radiol 27:1547–1555. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Baco E, Ukimura O, Rud E, Vlatkovic L, Svindland A, Aron M, et al. (2015) Magnetic resonance imaging-transectal ultrasound image-fusion biopsies accurately characterize the index tumor: correlation with step-sectioned radical prostatectomy specimens in 135 patients. Eur Urol 67:787–794. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Yan D, Zhang J, Liang W, Sun J, Liu BY, Tian W, et al. (2013) Magnetic resonance imaging and histopathological analysis of experimental muscle injuries in a rabbit. Biomed Environ Sci 10:841-848. Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kim HK, Laor T, Horn PS, Wong B. (2010) Quantitative assessment of the T2 relaxation time of the gluteus muscles in children with Duchenne muscular dystrophy: a comparative study before and after steroid treatment. Korean J Radiol 3:304-311. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Feng ZY, Wang L, Min XD, Wang SG, WangGP, Cai J. (2016) Prostate Cancer Detection with Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 1 versus Version 2. Chin Med J 129:2451‑2459. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Siddiqui MM, Rais-Bahrami S, Truong H, Stamatakis L, Vourganti S, Nix J, et al. (2013) Magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound-fusion biopsy significantly upgrades prostate cancer versus systematic 12-core transrectal ultrasound biopsy. Eur Urol 5:713-719. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Radiology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical CollegeHuazhong University of Science and TechnologyWuhanChina
  2. 2.MR Collaboration NE AsiaSiemens HealthcareShanghaiChina

Personalised recommendations