Brief Article
Copyright ©2013 Baishideng Publishing Group Co., Limited. All rights reserved.
World J Radiol. Jul 28, 2013; 5(7): 259-263
Published online Jul 28, 2013. doi: 10.4329/wjr.v5.i7.259
Prostate magnetic resonance imaging at 3 Tesla: Is administration of hyoscine-N-butyl-bromide mandatory?
Matthias C Roethke, Timur H Kuru, Alexander Radbruch, Boris Hadaschik, Heinz-Peter Schlemmer
Matthias C Roethke, Alexander Radbruch, Heinz-Peter Schlemmer, Department of Radiology, German Cancer Research Center Heidelberg (DKFZ), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
Timur H Kuru, Boris Hadaschik, Department of Urology, Universityhospital Heidelberg, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
Author contributions: Roethke MC, Radbruch A and Kuru TH designed the study; Roethke MC, Kuru TH and Schlemmer HP were responsible for acquisition and evaluation of the scans; Roethke MC, Hadaschik B and Schlemmer HP critically revised the manuscript; Roethke MC and Schlemmer HP wrote the paper; all authors contributed to supportive work.
Correspondence to: Dr. Matthias C Roethke, MD, Department of Radiology, German Cancer Research Center Heidelberg (DKFZ), Im Neuenheimer Feld 280, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany. m.roethke@dkfz-heidelberg.de
Telephone: +49-6221-422520 Fax: +49-6221-422531
Received: April 3, 2013
Revised: May 23, 2013
Accepted: July 4, 2013
Published online: July 28, 2013
Processing time: 120 Days and 14.1 Hours
Abstract

AIM: To evaluate the value of administration of hyoscine-N-butyl-bromide (HBB) for image quality magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the prostate.

METHODS: Seventy patients were retrospectively included in the study. Thirty-five patients were examined with administration of 40 milligrams of HBB (Buscopan®; Boehringer, Ingelheim, Germany); 35 patients were examined without HBB. A multiparametric MRI protocol was performed on a 3.0 Tesla scanner without using an endorectal coil. The following criteria were evaluated independently by two experienced radiologists on a five-point Likert scale: anatomical details (delineation between peripheral and transitional zone of the prostate, visualisation of the capsule, depiction of the neurovascular bundles); visualisation of lymph nodes; motion related artefacts; and overall image quality.

RESULTS: Comparison of anatomical details between the two cohorts showed no statistically significant difference (3.9 ± 0.7 vs 4.0 ± 0.9, P = 0.54, and 3.8 ± 0.7 vs 4.2 ± 0.6, P = 0.07) for both readers. There was no significant advantage regarding depiction of local and iliac lymph nodes (3.9 ± 0.6 vs 4.2 ± 0.6, P = 0.07, and 3.8 ± 0.9 vs 4.1 ± 0.8, P = 0.19). Motion artefacts were rated as “none” to “few” in both groups and showed no statistical difference (2.3 ± 1.0 vs 1.9 ± 0.9, P = 0.19, and 2.3 ± 1.1 vs 1.9 ± 0.7, P = 0.22). Overall image quality was rated “good” in average for both cohorts without significant difference (4.0 ± 0.6 vs 4.0 ± 0.9, P = 0.78, and 3.8 ± 0.8 vs 4.2 ± 0.6, P = 0.09).

CONCLUSION: The results demonstrated no significant effect of HBB administration on image quality. The study suggests that use of HBB is not mandatory for MRI of the prostate at 3.0 Tesla.

Keywords: Butylscopolamine; Buscopan; Motion artefacts; Magnetic resonance imaging; Prostate cancer; 3 Tesla

Core tip: The study demonstrated no significant effect of hyoscine-N-butyl-bromide (HBB) (butylscopolamine) administration on image quality of prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) at 3.0 Tesla without using an endorectal coil. The results suggest that the use of HBB is not generally mandatory for MRI of the prostate.