Effect of butylscopolamine on the quality MRI images of the prostate

Clinical Radiology

Volumn 65, Issue 6, 2010, Pages 460-464

  Wagner, M ^a   Rief, M ^a   Busch, J ^a   Scheurig, C ^a   Taupitz, M ^a   Hamm, B ^a   Franiel, T ^a  

^a CHARITÉ UNIVERSITÄTSMEDIZIN BERLIN   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

SCOPOLAMINE BUTYL BROMIDE; MUSCARINIC RECEPTOR BLOCKING AGENT;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; ARTIFACT REDUCTION; BRAIN BLOOD VESSEL; CONTROLLED STUDY; ELECTRON SPIN RESONANCE; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGE QUALITY; INTESTINE MOTILITY; INTESTINE WALL; MALE; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PELVIS LYMPH NODE; PREMEDICATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; SYNDROME DELINEATION; ARTIFACT; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; EVALUATION STUDY; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; INTRAMUSCULAR DRUG ADMINISTRATION; MIDDLE AGED; PATHOLOGY; PROCEDURES; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY;

AGED; ARTIFACTS; BUTYLSCOPOLAMMONIUM BROMIDE; HUMANS; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; INJECTIONS, INTRAMUSCULAR; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MUSCARINIC ANTAGONISTS; PROSTATE; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES;

EID: 77951698335     PISSN: 00099260     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.crad.2010.02.007     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Hricak H., Choyke P.L., Eberhardt S.C., et al. Imaging prostate cancer: a multidisciplinary perspective. Radiology 243 (2007) 28-53
2. Hricak H., White S., Vigneron D., et al. Carcinoma of the prostate gland: MR imaging with pelvic phased-array coils versus integrated endorectal-pelvic phased-array coils. Radiology 193 (1994) 703-709
3. Franiel T., Ludemann L., Rudolph B., et al. Evaluation of normal prostate tissue, chronic prostatitis, and prostate cancer by quantitative perfusion analysis using a dynamic contrast-enhanced inversion-prepared dual-contrast gradient echo sequence. Invest Radiol 43 (2008) 481-487
4. Johnson W., Taylor M.B., Carrington B.M., et al. The value of hyoscine butylbromide in pelvic MRI. Clin Radiol 62 (2007) 1087-1093
5. Beyersdorff D., Taymoorian K., Knosel T., et al. MRI of prostate cancer at 1.5 and 3.0 T: comparison of image quality in tumor detection and staging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 185 (2005) 1214-1220
6. Cruz M., Tsuda K., Narumi Y., et al. Characterization of low-intensity lesions in the peripheral zone of prostate on pre-biopsy endorectal coil MR imaging. Eur Radiol 12 (2002) 357-365
7. Rorvik J., Halvorsen O.J., Albrektsen G., et al. MRI with an endorectal coil for staging of clinically localised prostate cancer prior to radical prostatectomy. Eur Radiol 9 (1999) 29-34
8. Schlemmer H.P., Merkle J., Grobholz R., et al. Can pre-operative contrast-enhanced dynamic MR imaging for prostate cancer predict microvessel density in prostatectomy specimens?. Eur Radiol 14 (2004) 309-317
9. Rogalla P., Lembcke A., Ruckert J.C., et al. Spasmolysis at CT colonography: butyl scopolamine versus glucagon. Radiology 236 (2005) 184-188
10. Skucas J. The use of antispasmodic drugs during barium enemas. AJR Am J Roentgenol 162 (1994) 1323-1325
11. Wagner M., Klessen C., Rief M., et al. High-resolution T2-weighted abdominal magnetic resonance imaging using respiratory triggering: impact of butylscopolamine on image quality. Acta Radiol 49 (2008) 376-382
12. Heijmink S.W., Futterer J.J., Hambrock T., et al. Prostate cancer: body-array versus endorectal coil MR imaging at 3 T-comparison of image quality, localization, and staging performance. Radiology 244 (2007) 184-195
13. Park B.K., Kim B., Kim C.K., et al. Comparison of phased-array 3.0-T and endorectal 1.5-T magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of local staging accuracy for prostate cancer. J Comput Assist Tomogr 31 (2007) 534-538
14. Stark D.D., Hendrick R.E., Hahn P.F., et al. Motion artefact reduction with fast spin-echo imaging. Radiology 164 (1987) 183-191
15. Wood M.L., Runge V.M., and Henkelman R.M. Overcoming motion in abdominal MR imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 150 (1988) 513-522
16. Akin O., Sala E., Moskowitz C.S., et al. Transition zone prostate cancers: features, detection, localization, and staging at endorectal MR imaging. Radiology 239 (2006) 784-792
17. Bartolozzi C., Menchi I., Lencioni R., et al. Local staging of prostate carcinoma with endorectal coil MRI: correlation with whole-mount radical prostatectomy specimens. Eur Radiol 6 (1996) 339-345
18. Cheikh A.B., Girouin N., Colombel M., et al. Evaluation of T2-weighted and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in localizing prostate cancer before repeat biopsy. Eur Radiol 19 (2009) 770-778
19. Coakley F.V., Hricak H., Wefer A.E., et al. Brachytherapy for prostate cancer: endorectal MR imaging of local treatment-related changes. Radiology 219 (2001) 817-821
20. Cornud F., Flam T., Chauveinc L., et al. Extraprostatic spread of clinically localized prostate cancer: factors predictive of pT3 tumor and of positive endorectal MR imaging examination results. Radiology 224 (2002) 203-210
21. Futterer J.J., Scheenen T.W., Huisman H.J., et al. Initial experience of 3 Tesla endorectal coil magnetic resonance imaging and 1H-spectroscopic imaging of the prostate. Invest Radiol 39 (2004) 671-680
22. Ikonen S., Karkkainen P., Kivisaari L., et al. Endorectal magnetic resonance imaging of prostatic cancer: comparison between fat-suppressed T2-weighted fast spin echo and three-dimensional dual-echo, steady-state sequences. Eur Radiol 11 (2001) 236-241
23. Rouviere O., Raudrant A., Ecochard R., et al. Characterization of time-enhancement curves of benign and malignant prostate tissue at dynamic MR imaging. Eur Radiol 13 (2003) 931-942
24. Sella T., Schwartz L.H., Swindle P.W., et al. Suspected local recurrence after radical prostatectomy: endorectal coil MR imaging. Radiology 231 (2004) 379-385
25. Wetter A., Ajdukovic A.N., Fliessbach K., et al. Staging of prostate cancer: value of the combined information of endorectal MRI, biopsy Gleason score, and preoperative PSA level. Rofo 178 (2006) 385-390 [In German]
26. Dyde R., Chapman A.H., Gale R., et al. Precautions to be taken by radiologists and radiographers when prescribing hyoscine-N-butylbromide. Clin Radiol 63 (2008) 739-743