PURPOSE: The goal of this study was to compare the diagnostic use and safety of endorectal coil (ERC) MRI with those of phased-array coil MRI. METHODS: We retrospectively included 91 consecutive patients who had undergone 1.5-T MRI with ERC or with phased-array coil MRI before radical prostatectomy at our institution. We compared 47 patients' phased-array coil MRI and 44 patients' ERC-MRI with histologic findings. We also evaluated adverse events following the MRI procedure. RESULTS: The serum PSA levels ranged from 2.85 to 33.51 ng/mL (10.72 ± 1.9), and the median Gleason score was 7 (range 4-9). The mean interval between diagnostic prostate biopsy and staging MRI was 18.4 days (range 2-37). In assessing organ-confined disease, extracapsular extension and seminal vesicle invasion by MRI, there were no significant differences between ERC-MR group and phased-array coil MR group. The AUC values were 0.671 (95% CI 0.530-0.813) for ERC-MR and 0.657 (95% CI 0.503-0.811) for phased-array coil MR. No significant differences were found between the two groups (p = 0.24). Five patients (11.4%) developed rectal complications after ERC-MRI. However, no complications were found in phased-array coil MRI group. CONCLUSIONS: In terms of diagnostic accuracy and comfort of patients, the use of ERC-MRI did not significantly improve the staging of prostate cancer and presented several complications. Therefore, phased-array coil MRI is a better alternative considering comorbidity.
PURPOSE: The goal of this study was to compare the diagnostic use and safety of endorectal coil (ERC) MRI with those of phased-array coil MRI. METHODS: We retrospectively included 91 consecutive patients who had undergone 1.5-T MRI with ERC or with phased-array coil MRI before radical prostatectomy at our institution. We compared 47 patients' phased-array coil MRI and 44 patients' ERC-MRI with histologic findings. We also evaluated adverse events following the MRI procedure. RESULTS: The serum PSA levels ranged from 2.85 to 33.51 ng/mL (10.72 ± 1.9), and the median Gleason score was 7 (range 4-9). The mean interval between diagnostic prostate biopsy and staging MRI was 18.4 days (range 2-37). In assessing organ-confined disease, extracapsular extension and seminal vesicle invasion by MRI, there were no significant differences between ERC-MR group and phased-array coil MR group. The AUC values were 0.671 (95% CI 0.530-0.813) for ERC-MR and 0.657 (95% CI 0.503-0.811) for phased-array coil MR. No significant differences were found between the two groups (p = 0.24). Five patients (11.4%) developed rectal complications after ERC-MRI. However, no complications were found in phased-array coil MRI group. CONCLUSIONS: In terms of diagnostic accuracy and comfort of patients, the use of ERC-MRI did not significantly improve the staging of prostate cancer and presented several complications. Therefore, phased-array coil MRI is a better alternative considering comorbidity.
Authors: Aliya Qayyum; Fergus V Coakley; Ying Lu; Jeffrey D Olpin; Louis Wu; Benjamin M Yeh; Peter R Carroll; John Kurhanewicz Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: G J Jager; E T Ruijter; C A van de Kaa; J J de la Rosette; G O Oosterhof; J R Thornbury; S H Ruijs; J O Barentsz Journal: Radiology Date: 1997-06 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Song K Kang; Rachel H Chou; Richard K Dodge; Robert W Clough; Hi-Sung L Kang; Carol A Hahn; Arthur W Whitehurst; Niall J Buckley; Jay H Kim; Raymond E Joyner; Gustavo S Montana; Sally S Ingram; Mitchell S Anscher Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2002-05-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: A S N Jackson; S A Reinsberg; S A Sohaib; E M Charles-Edwards; S Jhavar; T J Christmas; A C Thompson; M J Bailey; C M Corbishley; C Fisher; M O Leach; D P Dearnaley Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2009-02 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Stephan H Polanec; Katja Pinker-Domenig; Peter Brader; Dietmar Georg; Shahrokh Shariat; Claudio Spick; Martin Susani; Thomas H Helbich; Pascal A Baltzer Journal: World J Urol Date: 2015-09-25 Impact factor: 4.226
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: Baris Turkbey; Anna M Brown; Sandeep Sankineni; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto; Peter L Choyke Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2015-11-23 Impact factor: 508.702