Literature DB >> 18407539

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

Susan M Noworolski1, Jason C Crane, Daniel B Vigneron, John Kurhanewicz.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare the data quality and ease of use of four endorectal-coil probe setups for prostate MRI.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four endorectal-coil probe setups were compared: 1) air-inflated probe; 2) perfluorocarbon (PFC)-inflated probe; 3) rigid, smaller prototype coil; and 4) rigid, smaller coil designed for biopsying the prostate. Signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), positioning, shimming, MRI motion artifact, and MR spectroscopic imaging (MRSI) spectral quality were assessed.
RESULTS: Rigid coils provided approximately 2.5-fold higher SNR than inflatable coils near the peripheral zone midline. The biopsy probe sensitivity decreased dramatically by the apex. The rigid probes, as compared to the inflatable probes, took longer to place (10 +/- 2 vs. 7 +/- 2 minutes, P < 0.0002), tended to be placed too superiorly, required repositioning more often (73% vs. 20%, P < 0.003), and had higher motion artifacts (P < 0.001). Shimming time was least for the PFC-inflated probe (2 +/- 0.5 minutes, P < 0.05). The air-inflated probe produced larger linewidths (P < 0.01) and tended to have longer shim times (7 +/- 4 minutes) and poorer spectral quality.
CONCLUSION: The inflatable coil is a good clinical choice due to ease of use, good coverage, and low motion artifacts. PFC-inflation is recommended as it provided higher quality data than air-inflation. The rigid, smaller probes have higher SNR and produce less tissue distortion and may be preferred for certain applications. (c) 2008 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18407539      PMCID: PMC2832222          DOI: 10.1002/jmri.21331

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging        ISSN: 1053-1807            Impact factor:   4.813


  11 in total

1.  Very selective suppression pulses for clinical MRSI studies of brain and prostate cancer.

Authors:  T K Tran; D B Vigneron; N Sailasuta; J Tropp; P Le Roux; J Kurhanewicz; S Nelson; R Hurd
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2000-01       Impact factor: 4.668

2.  Analysis of volume MRI and MR spectroscopic imaging data for the evaluation of patients with brain tumors.

Authors:  S J Nelson
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2001-08       Impact factor: 4.668

3.  Dualband spectral-spatial RF pulses for prostate MR spectroscopic imaging.

Authors:  A A Schricker; J M Pauly; J Kurhanewicz; M G Swanson; D B Vigneron
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 4.668

4.  Given the improvement in pelvic coils for MR, is an endorectal coil necessary to evaluate prostate carcinoma?

Authors:  H Hricak
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1995-09       Impact factor: 3.959

5.  Prostate: MR imaging with an endorectal surface coil.

Authors:  M D Schnall; R E Lenkinski; H M Pollack; Y Imai; H Y Kressel
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1989-08       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  A solid reusable endorectal receiver coil for magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate: design, use, and comparison with an inflatable endorectal coil.

Authors:  N M deSouza; D J Gilderdale; R Puni; G A Coutts; I R Young
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  1996 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 4.813

Review 7.  Functional MR imaging of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Young Jun Choi; Jeong Kon Kim; Namkug Kim; Kyoung Won Kim; Eugene K Choi; Kyoung-Sik Cho
Journal:  Radiographics       Date:  2007 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 5.333

8.  3T MR of the prostate: reducing susceptibility gradients by inflating the endorectal coil with a barium sulfate suspension.

Authors:  Yael Rosen; B Nicolas Bloch; Robert E Lenkinski; Robert L Greenman; Robert P Marquis; Neil M Rofsky
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2007-05       Impact factor: 4.668

Review 9.  Combined magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopic imaging approach to molecular imaging of prostate cancer.

Authors:  John Kurhanewicz; Mark G Swanson; Sarah J Nelson; Daniel B Vigneron
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2002-10       Impact factor: 4.813

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

Authors:  Yongbok Kim; I-Chow J Hsu; Jean Pouliot; Susan Moyher Noworolski; Daniel B Vigneron; John Kurhanewicz
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 4.071

View more
  9 in total

1.  Multiparametric 3T endorectal mri after external beam radiation therapy for prostate cancer.

Authors:  Antonio C Westphalen; Galen D Reed; Phillip P Vinh; Christopher Sotto; Daniel B Vigneron; John Kurhanewicz
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2012-04-25       Impact factor: 4.813

Review 2.  Prostate cancer detection and diagnosis: the role of MR and its comparison with other diagnostic modalities--a radiologist's perspective.

Authors:  Tobias Penzkofer; Clare M Tempany-Afdhal
Journal:  NMR Biomed       Date:  2013-09-03       Impact factor: 4.044

3.  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

4.  Feasibility of measuring prostate perfusion with arterial spin labeling.

Authors:  Xiufeng Li; Gregory J Metzger
Journal:  NMR Biomed       Date:  2012-06-07       Impact factor: 4.044

Review 5.  Multiparametric MRI of prostate cancer: an update on state-of-the-art techniques and their performance in detecting and localizing prostate cancer.

Authors:  John V Hegde; Robert V Mulkern; Lawrence P Panych; Fiona M Fennessy; Andriy Fedorov; Stephan E Maier; Clare M C Tempany
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2013-05       Impact factor: 4.813

6.  Reduced-FOV excitation decreases susceptibility artifact in diffusion-weighted MRI with endorectal coil for prostate cancer detection.

Authors:  Natalie Korn; John Kurhanewicz; Suchandrima Banerjee; Olga Starobinets; Emine Saritas; Susan Noworolski
Journal:  Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2014-09-06       Impact factor: 2.546

7.  Development and evaluation of a multichannel endorectal RF coil for prostate MRI at 7T in combination with an external surface array.

Authors:  M Arcan Ertürk; Jinfeng Tian; Pierre-François Van de Moortele; Gregor Adriany; Gregory J Metzger
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2015-11-19       Impact factor: 4.813

Review 8.  Developments in proton MR spectroscopic imaging of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Angeliki Stamatelatou; Tom W J Scheenen; Arend Heerschap
Journal:  MAGMA       Date:  2022-04-20       Impact factor: 2.533

9.  Monte Carlo-based noise compensation in coil intensity corrected endorectal MRI.

Authors:  Dorothy Lui; Amen Modhafar; Masoom A Haider; Alexander Wong
Journal:  BMC Med Imaging       Date:  2015-10-12       Impact factor: 1.930

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.