Prostate imaging: Evaluation of a reusable two-channel endorectal receiver coil for MR imaging at 1.5 T

Radiology

Volumn 270, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 556-565

  Haider, Masoom A ^a   Krieger, Axel ^b   Elliott, Christine ^c   Da Rosa, Michael R ^a   Milot, Laurent ^a  

^a SUNNYBROOK RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Canada)

^b CHILDREN'S NATIONAL MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^c Hologic   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; CORRELATION COEFFICIENT; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING EQUIPMENT; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; HUMAN; IMAGE QUALITY; MALE; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; PROSTATE CANCER; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; SIGNAL NOISE RATIO; SOLID REUSABLE PHASED ARRAY ENDORECTAL RECEIVER COIL; STUDENT T TEST;

AGED; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; HUMANS; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SIGNAL-TO-NOISE RATIO;

EID: 84893471746     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: 15271315     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.13130811     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Wang L, Hricak H, Kattan MW, Chen HN, Scardino PT, Kuroiwa K. Prediction of organconfined prostate cancer: incremental value of MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging to staging nomograms. Radiology 2006;238(2):597-603.
2. Turkbey B, Choyke PL. Multiparametric MRI and prostate cancer diagnosis and risk stratification. Curr Opin Urol 2012;22(4):310-315.
3. Rosenkrantz AB, Mussi TC, Borofsky MS, Scionti SS, Grasso M, Taneja SS. 3.0 T multiparametric prostate MRI using pelvic phased-array coil: Utility for tumor detection prior to biopsy. Urol Oncol 2012 Mar29. [Epub ahead of print]
4. Moore CM, Robertson NL, Arsanious N, et al. Image-guided prostate biopsy using magnetic resonance imaging-derived targets: a systematic review. Eur Urol 2013;63(1):125-140.
5. Vourganti S, Rastinehad A, Yerram NK, et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance im-aging and ultrasound fusion biopsy detect prostate cancer in patients with prior negative transrectal ultrasound biopsies. J Urol 2012;188(6):2152-2157.
6. Lindner U, Trachtenberg J, Lawrentschuk N. Focal therapy in prostate cancer: modalities, findings and future considerations. Nat Rev Urol 2010;7(10):562-571.
7. Sciarra A, Panebianco V, Cattarino S, et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate can improve the predictive value of the urinary prostate cancer antigen 3 test in patients with elevated prostate-specific antigen levels and a previous negative biopsy. BJU Int 2012;110(11):1661-1665.
8. Hoeks CM, Schouten MG, Bomers JG, et al. Three-Tesla magnetic resonance-guided prostate biopsy in men with increased prostatespecific antigen and repeated, negative, random, systematic, transrectal ultrasound biopsies: detection of clinically significant prostate cancers. Eur Urol 2012;62(5):902-909.
9. Margel D, Yap SA, Lawrentschuk N, et al. Impact of multiparametric endorectal coil prostate magnetic resonance imaging on disease reclassification among active surveillance candidates: a prospective cohort study. J Urol 2012;187(4):1247-1252.
10. Heijmink SW, Fütterer JJ, 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 2007;244(1):184-195.
11. Dickinson L, Ahmed HU, Allen C, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging for the detection, localisation, and characterisation of prostate cancer: recommendations from a European consensus meeting. Eur Urol 2011;59(4):477-494.
12. Schnall MD, Lenkinski RE, Pollack HM, Imai Y, Kressel HY. Prostate: MR imaging with an endorectal surface coil. Radiology 1989;172(2):570-574.
13. 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 1994;193(3):703-709.
14. Lee SH, Park KK, Choi KH, et al. Is endorectal coil necessary for the staging of clinically localized prostate cancer? Comparison of non-endorectal versus endorectal MR imaging. World J Urol 2010;28(6):667-672.
15. Fütterer JJ, Engelbrecht MR, Jager GJ, et al. Prostate cancer: comparison of local staging accuracy of pelvic phased-array coil alone versus integrated endorectalpelvic phased-array coils. Local staging accuracy of prostate cancer using endorectal coil MR imaging. Eur Radiol 2007;17(4):1055-1065.
16. Fütterer JJ, Scheenen TW, Huisman HJ, et al. Initial experience of 3 tesla endorectal coil magnetic resonance imaging and 1Hspectroscopic imaging of the prostate. Invest Radiol 2004;39(11):671-680.
17. deSouza NM, Gilderdale DJ, Puni R, Coutts GA, Young IR. A solid reusable endorectal receiver coil for magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate: design, use, and comparison with an inflatable endorectal coil. J Magn Reson Imaging 1996;6(5):801-804.
18. Noworolski SM, Crane JC, Vigneron DB, Kurhanewicz J. A clinical comparison of rigid and inflatable endorectal-coil probes for MRI and 3D MR spectroscopic imaging (MRSI) of the prostate. J Magn Reson Imaging 2008;27(5):1077-1082.
19. National Electrical Manufacturers Association. MS 1-2008: Determination of signal-tonoise ratio in diagnostic magnetic resonance imaging. http://www.nema.org/standards/Pages/Determination-of-Signal-to-Noise-Ratio-in- Diagnostic-Magnetic-Resonance-Imaging.aspx. Published May 8, 2008. Accessed January 2, 2013.
20. Misakian M. Equations for the magnetic field produced by one or more rectangular loops of wire in the same plane. J Res Natl Inst Stand Technol 2000;105(4):557-564.
21. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977;33(1):159-174.
22. Hricak H. Given the improvement in pelvic coils for MR, is an endorectal coil necessary to evaluate prostate carcinoma? AJR Am J Roentgenol 1995;165(3):733-734.