RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To compare prostate morphology, image quality, and diagnostic performance of 1.5-T endorectal coil magnetic resonance (MR) imaging (MRI) and 3.0-T nonendorectal coil MRI in patients with prostate cancer.
FREE DAILY AND WEEKLY NEWSLETTERS OFFERED BY CONTENT OF INTEREST
Did you find this article relevant? Subscribe to UroToday-GUOncToday!
The fields of GU Oncology and Urology are advancing rapidly including new treatments, enrolling clinical trials, screening and surveillance recommendations along with updated guidelines. Join us as one of our subscribers who rely on UroToday as their must-read source for the latest news and data on drugs. Sign up today for blogs, video conversations, conference highlights and abstracts from peer-review publications by disease and condition delivered to your inbox and read on the go.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: MR images obtained of 83 patients with prostate cancer using 1.5-T MRI systems with an endorectal coil were compared to images collected from 83 patients with a 3.0-T MRI system. Prostate diameters were measured, and image quality was evaluated by one American Board of Radiology (ABR)-certified radiologist (reader 1) and one ABR-certified diagnostic medical physicist (reader 2). The likelihood of the presence of peripheral zone cancer in each sextant and local extent was rated and compared to histopathologic findings.
RESULTS: Prostate anterior-posterior diameter measured by both readers was significantly shorter with 1.5-T endorectal MRI than with 3.0-T MRI. The overall image quality score difference was significant only for reader 1. Both readers found that the two MRI systems provided a similar diagnostic accuracy in cancer localization, extraprostatic extension, and seminal vesicle involvement.
CONCLUSIONS: Nonendorectal coil 3.0-T MRI provides prostate images that are natural in shape and that have comparable image quality to those obtained at 1.5 T with an endorectal coil, but not superior diagnostic performance. These findings suggest an opportunity exists for improving technical aspects of the 3.0-T prostate MRI.
Shah ZK, Elias SN, Abaza R, Zynger DL, DeRenne LA, Knopp MV, Guo B, Schurr R, Heymsfield SB, Jia G. Are you the author?
Department of Radiology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio; OhioHealth Dublin Methodist Hospital, Dublin, Ohio; Department of Pathology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio; Department of Experimental Statistics, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana; Department of Physics and Astronomy, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70803; Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Baton Rouge, Louisiana; Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
Reference: Acad Radiol. 2015 Jan 8. pii: S1076-6332(14)00453-X.