OBJECTIVE: To retrospectively evaluate local staging accuracy for prostate cancer at 3.0-T magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) by comparing with that at 1.5-T MRI. METHODS: Two groups, each consisting of 54 patients, were included by matching for age, prostate specific antigen, and Gleason score. Before radical prostatectomy, 1 group underwent 3.0-T MRI using a phased-array coil, and the other 1.5-T MRI using an endorectal coil. T2-weighted MR images at 3.0 and 1.5 T were analyzed in consensus by 2 radiologists, and their staging accuracy was compared with histology. Artifact and overall image quality were compared at both 3.0 and 1.5 T. RESULTS: Accuracy for T3 stage at 3.0 and 1.5 T were 72% (39/54) and 70% (38/54), respectively (P > 0.05). The 3.0-T MRI had a lower incidence of MR artifacts than the 1.5-T MRI (P < 0.05). However, overall imaging quality at both 3.0 and 1.5 T had no significant difference (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The 3.0-T phased-array MRI is equivalent to the 1.5-T endorectal MRI in evaluating local staging accuracy for prostate cancer without significant loss of imaging quality.
OBJECTIVE: To retrospectively evaluate local staging accuracy for prostate cancer at 3.0-T magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) by comparing with that at 1.5-T MRI. METHODS: Two groups, each consisting of 54 patients, were included by matching for age, prostate specific antigen, and Gleason score. Before radical prostatectomy, 1 group underwent 3.0-T MRI using a phased-array coil, and the other 1.5-T MRI using an endorectal coil. T2-weighted MR images at 3.0 and 1.5 T were analyzed in consensus by 2 radiologists, and their staging accuracy was compared with histology. Artifact and overall image quality were compared at both 3.0 and 1.5 T. RESULTS: Accuracy for T3 stage at 3.0 and 1.5 T were 72% (39/54) and 70% (38/54), respectively (P > 0.05). The 3.0-T MRI had a lower incidence of MR artifacts than the 1.5-T MRI (P < 0.05). However, overall imaging quality at both 3.0 and 1.5 T had no significant difference (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The 3.0-T phased-array MRI is equivalent to the 1.5-T endorectal MRI in evaluating local staging accuracy for prostate cancer without significant loss of imaging quality.
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
Authors: M C Roethke; T H Kuru; S Schultze; D Tichy; A Kopp-Schneider; M Fenchel; H-P Schlemmer; B A Hadaschik Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2013-10-03 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: M Abd-Alazeez; N Ramachandran; N Dikaios; H U Ahmed; M Emberton; A Kirkham; M Arya; S Taylor; S Halligan; S Punwani Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2015-02-03 Impact factor: 5.554
Authors: Baris Turkbey; Haresh Mani; Vijay Shah; Ardeshir R Rastinehad; Marcelino Bernardo; Thomas Pohida; Yuxi Pang; Dagane Daar; Compton Benjamin; Yolanda L McKinney; Hari Trivedi; Celene Chua; Gennady Bratslavsky; Joanna H Shih; W Marston Linehan; Maria J Merino; Peter L Choyke; Peter A Pinto Journal: J Urol Date: 2011-09-25 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: F Couñago; M Recio; E Del Cerro; L Cerezo; A Díaz Gavela; F J Marcos; R Murillo; J M Rodriguez Luna; I J Thuissard; J L R Martin Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2014-05-28 Impact factor: 3.405
Authors: Berrend G Muller; Jurgen J Fütterer; Rajan T Gupta; Aaron Katz; Alexander Kirkham; John Kurhanewicz; Judd W Moul; Peter A Pinto; Ardeshir R Rastinehad; Cary Robertson; Jean de la Rosette; Rafael Sanchez-Salas; J Stephen Jones; Osamu Ukimura; Sadhna Verma; Hessel Wijkstra; Michael Marberger Journal: BJU Int Date: 2013-11-13 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Christopher P Filson; Shyam Natarajan; Daniel J A Margolis; Jiaoti Huang; Patricia Lieu; Frederick J Dorey; Robert E Reiter; Leonard S Marks Journal: Cancer Date: 2016-01-07 Impact factor: 6.860