Literature DB >> 17893061

MR imaging of the prostate: 1.5T versus 3T.

Daniel M Cornfeld1, Jeffrey C Weinreb.   

Abstract

Over the past several years, evidence supporting the use of MR imaging in the evaluation of prostate cancer has grown. Almost all this work has been performed at 1.5T. The gradual introduction of 3T scanners into clinical practice provides a potential opportunity to improve the quality and usefulness of prostate imaging. Increased signal to noise allows for imaging at higher resolution, higher temporal resolution, or higher bandwidth. Although this may improve the quality of conventional T2-weighted prostate imaging, which has been the standard sequence for detecting and localizing prostate cancer for years, the real potential for improvement at 3T involves more advanced techniques, such as spectroscopy, diffusion-weighted imaging, dynamic contrast imaging, and susceptibility imaging. This review presents the current data on 3T MR imaging of the prostate as well as the authors' impressions based on their experience at Yale-New Haven Hospital.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17893061     DOI: 10.1016/j.mric.2007.06.004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am        ISSN: 1064-9689            Impact factor:   2.266


  12 in total

1.  Customization of normal data base specific for 3-tesla MRI is mandatory in VSRAD analysis.

Authors:  Masami Goto; Yuuichi Suzuki; Osamu Abe; Naoto Hayashi; Shigeki Aoki; Harushi Mori; Tomohiko Masumoto; Yasushi Watanabe; Yoshirou Satake; Kenji Ino; Keiichi Yano; Kyouhito Iida; Kazuo Mima; Kuni Ohtomo
Journal:  Radiol Phys Technol       Date:  2008-06-17

Review 2.  MRI-guided focused ultrasound surgery.

Authors:  Ferenc A Jolesz
Journal:  Annu Rev Med       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 13.739

3.  Is endorectal coil necessary for the staging of clinically localized prostate cancer? Comparison of non-endorectal versus endorectal MR imaging.

Authors:  Seung Hwan Lee; Kyung Kgi Park; Kyung Hwa Choi; Beom Jin Lim; Joo Hee Kim; Seung Wook Lee; Byung Ha Chung
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2010-07-11       Impact factor: 4.226

4.  Image artifacts on prostate diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging: trade-offs at 1.5 Tesla and 3.0 Tesla.

Authors:  Yousef Mazaheri; H Alberto Vargas; Gregory Nyman; Oguz Akin; Hedvig Hricak
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2013-08       Impact factor: 3.173

Review 5.  Update on prostate imaging.

Authors:  Jalil Afnan; Clare M Tempany
Journal:  Urol Clin North Am       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 2.241

Review 6.  Diffusion-weighted imaging with apparent diffusion coefficient mapping and spectroscopy in prostate cancer.

Authors:  Michael A Jacobs; Ronald Ouwerkerk; Kyle Petrowski; Katarzyna J Macura
Journal:  Top Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2008-12

Review 7.  MR imaging of the prostate in clinical practice.

Authors:  Yousef Mazaheri; Amita Shukla-Dave; Ada Muellner; Hedvig Hricak
Journal:  MAGMA       Date:  2008-09-16       Impact factor: 2.310

8.  Correlation of apparent diffusion coefficients measured by 3T diffusion-weighted MRI and SUV from FDG PET/CT in primary cervical cancer.

Authors:  Kung-Chu Ho; Gigin Lin; Jiun-Jie Wang; Chyong-Huey Lai; Chee-Jen Chang; Tzu-Chen Yen
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2008-09-09       Impact factor: 9.236

9.  ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012.

Authors:  Jelle O Barentsz; Jonathan Richenberg; Richard Clements; Peter Choyke; Sadhna Verma; Geert Villeirs; Olivier Rouviere; Vibeke Logager; Jurgen J Fütterer
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2012-02-10       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 10.  Multidisciplinary functional MR imaging for prostate cancer.

Authors:  Jeong Kon Kim; Yun-Jin Jang; Gyunggoo Cho
Journal:  Korean J Radiol       Date:  2009 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 3.500

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.