Literature DB >> 16475755

Expandable and rigid endorectal coils for prostate MRI: impact on prostate distortion and rigid image registration.

Yongbok Kim1, I-Chow J Hsu, Jean Pouliot, Susan Moyher Noworolski, Daniel B Vigneron, John Kurhanewicz.   

Abstract

Endorectal coils (ERCs) are used for acquiring high spatial resolution magnetic resonance (MR) images of the human prostate. The goal of this study is to determine the impact of an expandable versus a rigid ERC on changes in the location and deformation of the prostate gland and subsequently on registering prostate images acquired with and without an ERC. Sagittal and axial T2 weighted MR images were acquired from 25 patients receiving a combined MR imaging/MR spectroscopic imaging staging exam for prostate cancer. Within the same exam, images were acquired using an external pelvic phased array coil both alone and in combination with either an expandable ERC (MedRad, Pittsburgh, PA) or a rigid ERC (USA Instruments, Aurora, OH). Rotations, translations and deformations caused by the ERC were measured and compared. The ability to register images acquired with and without the ERC using a manual rigid-body registration was assessed using a similarity index (SI). Both ERCs caused the prostate to tilt anteriorly with an average tilt of 18.5 degrees (17.4 +/- 9.9 and 19.5 +/- 11.3 degrees, mean +/- standard deviation, for expandable and rigid ERC, respectively). However, the expandable coil caused a significantly larger distortion of the prostate as compared to the rigid coil; compressing the prostate in the anterior/posterior direction by 4.1 +/- 3.0 mm vs 1.2 +/- 2.2 mm (14.5% vs 4.8%) (p < 0.0001), and widening the prostate in the right/left direction by 3.8 +/- 3.7 mm vs 1.5 +/- 3.1 mm (8.3% vs 3.4%) (p = 0.004). Additionally, the ability to manually align prostate images acquired with and without ERC was significantly (p < 0.0001) better for the rigid coil (SI = 0.941 +/- 0.008 vs 0.899 +/- 0.033, for the rigid and expandable coils, respectively). In conclusion, the manual rigid-body alignment of prostate MR images acquired with and without the ERC can be improved through the use of a rigid ERC.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16475755     DOI: 10.1118/1.2122467

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Phys        ISSN: 0094-2405            Impact factor:   4.071


  17 in total

Review 1.  Technological advances in radiation therapy for prostate cancer.

Authors:  Mehee Choi; Arthur Y Hung
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2010-05       Impact factor: 3.092

Review 2.  MR-guided prostate interventions.

Authors:  Clare Tempany; Sarah Straus; Nobuhiko Hata; Steven Haker
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 4.813

3.  Two-dimensional MR spectroscopy of healthy and cancerous prostates in vivo.

Authors:  M Albert Thomas; Thomas Lange; S Sendhil Velan; Rajakumar Nagarajan; Steve Raman; Ana Gomez; Daniel Margolis; Stephany Swart; Raymond R Raylman; Rolf F Schulte; Peter Boesiger
Journal:  MAGMA       Date:  2008-07-17       Impact factor: 2.310

4.  A clinical comparison of rigid and inflatable endorectal-coil probes for MRI and 3D MR spectroscopic imaging (MRSI) of the prostate.

Authors:  Susan M Noworolski; Jason C Crane; Daniel B Vigneron; John Kurhanewicz
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2008-05       Impact factor: 4.813

5.  Accuracy Validation of an Automated Method for Prostate Segmentation in Magnetic Resonance Imaging.

Authors:  Maysam Shahedi; Derek W Cool; Glenn S Bauman; Matthew Bastian-Jordan; Aaron Fenster; Aaron D Ward
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2017-12       Impact factor: 4.056

6.  Comparison of Elastic and Rigid Registration during Magnetic Resonance Imaging/Ultrasound Fusion-Guided Prostate Biopsy: A Multi-Operator Phantom Study.

Authors:  Graham R Hale; Marcin Czarniecki; Alexis Cheng; Jonathan B Bloom; Reza Seifabadi; Samuel A Gold; Kareem N Rayn; Vikram K Sabarwal; Sherif Mehralivand; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey; Brad Wood; Peter A Pinto
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2018-06-22       Impact factor: 7.450

7.  Magnetic Resonance Imaging Underestimation of Prostate Cancer Geometry: Use of Patient Specific Molds to Correlate Images with Whole Mount Pathology.

Authors:  Alan Priester; Shyam Natarajan; Pooria Khoshnoodi; Daniel J Margolis; Steven S Raman; Robert E Reiter; Jiaoti Huang; Warren Grundfest; Leonard S Marks
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2016-07-30       Impact factor: 7.450

8.  Post-processing correction of the endorectal coil reception effects in MR spectroscopic imaging of the prostate.

Authors:  Susan M Noworolski; Galen D Reed; John Kurhanewicz; Daniel B Vigneron
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 4.813

9.  Volume and landmark analysis: comparison of MRI measurements obtained with an endorectal coil and with a phased-array coil.

Authors:  Y Mazaheri; A A Afaq; S I Jung; D A Goldman; L Wang; H Aslan; M J Zelefsky; O Akin; H Hricak
Journal:  Clin Radiol       Date:  2014-12-29       Impact factor: 2.350

10.  Semiautomatic registration of digital histopathology images to in vivo MR images in molded and unmolded prostates.

Authors:  Olga Starobinets; Richard Guo; Jeffry P Simko; Kyle Kuchinsky; John Kurhanewicz; Peter R Carroll; Kirsten L Greene; Susan M Noworolski
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2013-10-17       Impact factor: 4.813

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.