All, more larger studies need to be performed to further prove

All, more larger studies need to be performed to further prove these results. Prostatic calcification is frequently encountered in urological practice. Some reports revealed that small, multiple calcifications are a normal, often incidental ultrasonographic finding in the prostate and represent a result of age rather than a pathologic entity. However, larger prostatic calcification may be related to underlying inflammation and require further evaluation and possible treatment [26,27]. Traditionally, CT is thought the gold standard for detection of calcification which can be determined with Hounsfield units (Hu) above 100 [28]. On routine MRI, the signal of calcification is varied because of diverse calcium compounds and difficult to distinguish it from hemorrhage. Therefore, the ability of CT in detecting calcification is far greater than conventional MRI. With the development of MRI techniques, filtered phase image has become a very sensitive technique in detecting calcification in brain [8], but no 18325633 study was performed to MedChemExpress IQ1 investigate its value in detecting prostatic calcification. This study demonstrated that filtered phase image has equal efficiency in detecting prostatic calcification as CT and far higher efficiency than routine MRI. The mechanism may be that filtered phase image is exquisitely sensitive to differences in local magnetic susceptibility, which can be induced by both hemorrhage and calcification [5]. Both calcification and hemorrhage show low signal on SWI, but present opposite signal features on filtered phase images. Usually calcification is high signal or mixed signal dominated by high signal but hemorrhage displays as low signal or mixed signal dominated by low signal on filtered phase images [29]. So filtered phase image is useful in distinguishing calcificationfrom hemorrhage. To overcome ill-posed nature of the inverse filter and improve susceptibility quantification, Dr. Haacke et al. introduced a form of susceptibility mapping to produce an image of veins from phase data [30]. Both simulations and human studies have demonstrated that this approach can dramatically reduce streaking artifacts and improve the accuracy of susceptibility quantification inside the structures of interest such as veins or other brain tissues [31]. In the future, it may be possible to use this approach to evaluate quantitatively microbleeds and calcifications and allow a straightforward identification of calcification. The major limitation of this study is that the histopathologic examination were all performed by biopsy MedChemExpress CASIN instead of prostate resection. So the tumor hemorrhage on SWI was not directly proved by histopathologic examinations. In addition, the sample size in this study is not very large so we did not evaluate the incidence of tumor bleeding at different stages in patients with prostate cancer. Future studies may need to get more reliable results and investigate the potential of SWI in the prostate cancer staging. In conclusion, our results indicate that SWI is more sensitive in the detection of prostate microbleeding and may be helpful in the differential diagnosis between prostatic cancer and benign prostatic hyperplasia. Filtered phase images can identify prostate calcifications as well as CT. More studies with larger sample size are needed to get more reliable results for clinical practice in the future.AcknowledgmentsWe wish to thank Dr. E. Mark Haacke in deparment of Radiology in Wayne State University in USA for manuscr.All, more larger studies need to be performed to further prove these results. Prostatic calcification is frequently encountered in urological practice. Some reports revealed that small, multiple calcifications are a normal, often incidental ultrasonographic finding in the prostate and represent a result of age rather than a pathologic entity. However, larger prostatic calcification may be related to underlying inflammation and require further evaluation and possible treatment [26,27]. Traditionally, CT is thought the gold standard for detection of calcification which can be determined with Hounsfield units (Hu) above 100 [28]. On routine MRI, the signal of calcification is varied because of diverse calcium compounds and difficult to distinguish it from hemorrhage. Therefore, the ability of CT in detecting calcification is far greater than conventional MRI. With the development of MRI techniques, filtered phase image has become a very sensitive technique in detecting calcification in brain [8], but no 18325633 study was performed to investigate its value in detecting prostatic calcification. This study demonstrated that filtered phase image has equal efficiency in detecting prostatic calcification as CT and far higher efficiency than routine MRI. The mechanism may be that filtered phase image is exquisitely sensitive to differences in local magnetic susceptibility, which can be induced by both hemorrhage and calcification [5]. Both calcification and hemorrhage show low signal on SWI, but present opposite signal features on filtered phase images. Usually calcification is high signal or mixed signal dominated by high signal but hemorrhage displays as low signal or mixed signal dominated by low signal on filtered phase images [29]. So filtered phase image is useful in distinguishing calcificationfrom hemorrhage. To overcome ill-posed nature of the inverse filter and improve susceptibility quantification, Dr. Haacke et al. introduced a form of susceptibility mapping to produce an image of veins from phase data [30]. Both simulations and human studies have demonstrated that this approach can dramatically reduce streaking artifacts and improve the accuracy of susceptibility quantification inside the structures of interest such as veins or other brain tissues [31]. In the future, it may be possible to use this approach to evaluate quantitatively microbleeds and calcifications and allow a straightforward identification of calcification. The major limitation of this study is that the histopathologic examination were all performed by biopsy instead of prostate resection. So the tumor hemorrhage on SWI was not directly proved by histopathologic examinations. In addition, the sample size in this study is not very large so we did not evaluate the incidence of tumor bleeding at different stages in patients with prostate cancer. Future studies may need to get more reliable results and investigate the potential of SWI in the prostate cancer staging. In conclusion, our results indicate that SWI is more sensitive in the detection of prostate microbleeding and may be helpful in the differential diagnosis between prostatic cancer and benign prostatic hyperplasia. Filtered phase images can identify prostate calcifications as well as CT. More studies with larger sample size are needed to get more reliable results for clinical practice in the future.AcknowledgmentsWe wish to thank Dr. E. Mark Haacke in deparment of Radiology in Wayne State University in USA for manuscr.