Performance Comparison of 1.5-T Endorectal Coil MRI with 3.0-T Nonendorectal Coil MRI in Patients with Prostate Cancer

Academic Radiology

Volumn 22, Issue 4, 2015, Pages 467-474

  Shah, Zarine K ^a   Elias, Saba N ^a   Abaza, Ronney ^b   Zynger, Debra L ^c   DeRenne, Lawrence A ^c   Knopp, Michael V ^a   Guo, Beibei ^d   Schurr, Ryan ^d   Heymsfield, Steven B ^e   Jia, Guang ^d,e  

^a THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY WEXNER MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b Dublin Methodist Hospital   (United States)

^c OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^e PENNINGTON BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Endorectal coil; Image quality; Magnetic resonance imaging; Prostate cancer; Tumor localization; Tumor staging

Indexed keywords

1.5 TESLA ENDORECTAL COIL MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; 3.0 TESLA NONENDORECTAL COIL MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; ADULT; AGED; ANTERIOR POSTERIOR AXIS; ARTICLE; CANCER LOCALIZATION; CANCER PATIENT; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; HUMAN; IMAGE QUALITY; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE SCANNER; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE CANCER; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SEMINAL VESICLE; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; CANCER STAGING; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DEVICES; MIDDLE AGED; PATHOLOGY; PROCEDURES; PROSTATE; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; REPRODUCIBILITY;

ADULT; AGED; HUMANS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM STAGING; PROSTATE; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 84924279910     PISSN: 10766332     EISSN: 18784046     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2014.11.007     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Siegel R., Ma J., Zou Z., et al. Cancer statistics, 2014. CA Cancer J Clin 2014, 64(1):9-29.
2. Mazaheri Y., Shukla-Dave A., Muellner A., et al. MRI of the prostate: clinical relevance and emerging applications. J Magn Reson Imaging 2011, 33(2):258-274.
3. Hricak H., Choyke P.L., Eberhardt S.C., et al. Imaging prostate cancer: a multidisciplinary perspective. Radiology 2007, 243(1):28-53.
4. 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.
5. Rajesh A., Coakley F.V. MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging of prostate cancer. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 2004, 12(3):557-579.
6. Heijmink S.W., Scheenen T.W., van Lin E.N., et al. Changes in prostate shape and volume and their implications for radiotherapy after introduction of endorectal balloon as determined by MRI at 3T. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009, 73(5):1446-1453.
7. Hensel J.M., Menard C., Chung P.W., et al. Development of multiorgan finite element-based prostate deformation model enabling registration of endorectal coil magnetic resonance imaging for radiotherapy planning. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007, 68(5):1522-1528.
8. 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 2007, 31(4):534-538.
9. Rouviere O., Hartman R.P., Lyonnet D. Prostate MR imaging at high-field strength: evolution or revolution?. Eur Radiol 2006, 16(2):276-284.
10. 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. Am J Roentgenol 2005, 185(5):1214-1220.
11. Sosna J., Pedrosa I., Dewolf W.C., et al. MR imaging of the prostate at 3 Tesla: comparison of an external phased-array coil to imaging with an endorectal coil at 1.5 Tesla. Acad Radiol 2004, 11(8):857-862.
12. Torricelli P., Cinquantini F., Ligabue G., et al. Comparative evaluation between external phased array coil at 3 T and endorectal coil at 1.5 T: preliminary results. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2006, 30(3):355-361.
13. Tahmasebi A.M., Sharifi R., Agarwal H.K., et al. A statistical model-based technique for accounting for prostate gland deformation in endorectal coil-based MR imaging. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc 2012, 2012:5412-5415.
14. Weinreb J.C., Blume J.D., Coakley F.V., et al. Prostate cancer: sextant localization at MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging before prostatectomy-results of ACRIN prospective multi-institutional clinicopathologic study. Radiology 2009, 251(1):122-133.
15. Jia G., Abaza R., Williams J.D., et al. Amide proton transfer MR imaging of prostate cancer: a preliminary study. J Magn Reson Imaging 2011, 33(3):647-654.
16. Pantanowitz L., Sinard J.H., Henricks W.H., et al. Validating whole slide imaging for diagnostic purposes in pathology: guideline from the College of American Pathologists Pathology and Laboratory Quality Center. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2013, 137(12):1710-1722.
17. Robin X., Turck N., Hainard A., et al. pROC: an open-source package for R and S+ to analyze and compare ROC curves. Bmc Bioinformatics 2011, 12:77.
18. Wu X., Dibiase S.J., Gullapalli R., et al. Deformable image registration for the use of magnetic resonance spectroscopy in prostate treatment planning. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2004, 58(5):1577-1583.
19. Bharatha A., Hirose M., Hata N., et al. Evaluation of three-dimensional finite element-based deformable registration of pre- and intraoperative prostate imaging. Med Phys 2001, 28(12):2551-2560.
20. Pursley J., Risholm P., Fedorov A., et al. A Bayesian nonrigid registration method to enhance intraoperative target definition in image-guided prostate procedures through uncertainty characterization. Med Phys 2012, 39(11):6858-6867.
21. Hirose M., Bharatha A., Hata N., et al. Quantitative MR imaging assessment of prostate gland deformation before and during MR imaging-guided brachytherapy. Acad Radiol 2002, 9(8):906-912.
22. Schreibmann E., Xing L. Narrow band deformable registration of prostate magnetic resonance imaging, magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging, and computed tomography studies. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2005, 62(2):595-605.
23. Brock K.K., Nichol A.M., Menard C., et al. Accuracy and sensitivity of finite element model-based deformable registration of the prostate. Med Phys 2008, 35(9):4019-4025.
24. Husband J.E., Padhani A.R., MacVicar A.D., et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of prostate cancer: comparison of image quality using endorectal and pelvic phased array coils. Clin Radiol 1998, 53(9):673-681.
25. 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 2007, 244(1):184-195.
26. Rosenkrantz A.B., Bennett G.L., Doshi A., et al. T2-weighted imaging of the prostate: impact of the BLADE technique on image quality and tumor assessment. Abdom Imaging 2014.
27. Turkbey B., Merino M.J., Gallardo E.C., et al. Comparison of endorectal coil and nonendorectal coil T2W and diffusion-weighted MRI at 3 Tesla for localizing prostate cancer: correlation with whole-mount histopathology. J Magn Reson Imaging 2013.
28. Bloch B.N., Rofsky N.M., Baroni R.H., et al. 3 Tesla magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate with combined pelvic phased-array and endorectal coils: initial experience. Acad Radiol 2004, 11(8):863-867.
29. 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 2004, 39(11):671-680.
30. Kim D.Y., Schnall M.D., Rosen M.A., et al. Prostate MR imaging at 3T with a longitudinal array endorectal surface coil and phased array body coil. J Magn Reson Imaging 2008, 27(6):1327-1330.
31. Futterer J.J., Heijmink S.W., Scheenen T.W., et al. Prostate cancer localization with dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging and proton MR spectroscopic imaging. Radiology 2006, 241(2):449-458.
32. Futterer J.J., Engelbrecht M.R., Jager G.J., et al. Prostate cancer: comparison of local staging accuracy of pelvic phased-array coil alone versus integrated endorectal-pelvic phased-array coils. Local staging accuracy of prostate cancer using endorectal coil MR imaging. EurRadiol 2007, 17(4):1055-1065.
33. Serai S.D., Merrow A.C., Kline-Fath B.M. Fetal MRI on a multi-element digital coil platform. Pediatr Radiol 2013, 43(9):1213-1217.
34. Dickinson L., Ahmed H.U., 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.