Literature DB >> 24243824

Comparison of endorectal coil and nonendorectal coil T2W and diffusion-weighted MRI at 3 Tesla for localizing prostate cancer: correlation with whole-mount histopathology.

Baris Turkbey1, Maria J Merino, Elma Carvajal Gallardo, Vijay Shah, Omer Aras, Marcelino Bernardo, Esther Mena, Dagane Daar, Ardeshir R Rastinehad, W Marston Linehan, Bradford J Wood, Peter A Pinto, Peter L Choyke.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare utility of T2-weighted (T2W) MRI and diffusion-weighted MRI (DWI-MRI) obtained with and without an endorectal coil at 3 Tesla (T) for localizing prostate cancer.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This Institutional Review Board-approved study included 20 patients (median prostate-specific antigen, 8.4 ng/mL). Patients underwent consecutive prostate MRIs at 3T, first with a surface coil alone, then with combination of surface, endorectal coils (dual coil) followed by robotic assisted radical prostatectomy. Lesions were mapped at time of acquisition on dual-coil T2W, DWI-MRI. To avoid bias, 6 months later nonendorectal coil T2W, DWI-MRI were mapped. Both MRI evaluations were performed by two readers blinded to pathology with differences resolved by consensus. A lesion-based correlation with whole-mount histopathology was performed.
RESULTS: At histopathology 51 cancer foci were present ranging in size from 2 to 60 mm. The sensitivity of the endorectal dual-coil, nonendorectal coil MRIs were 0.76, 0.45, respectively. PPVs for endorectal dual-coil, nonendorectal coil MRI were 0.80, 0.64, respectively. Mean size of detected lesions with nonendorectal coil MRI were larger than those detected by dual-coil MRI (22 mm versus 17.4 mm).
CONCLUSION: Dual-coil prostate MRI detected more cancer foci than nonendorectal coil MRI. While nonendorectal coil MRI is an attractive alternative, physicians performing prostate MRI should be aware of its limitations.
Copyright © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  3 Tesla; MRI; endorectal coil; prostate cancer; surface coil

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24243824      PMCID: PMC4016166          DOI: 10.1002/jmri.24317

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


  20 in total

1.  MR imaging of the prostate at 3 Tesla: comparison of an external phased-array coil to imaging with an endorectal coil at 1.5 Tesla.

Authors:  Jacob Sosna; Ivan Pedrosa; William C Dewolf; Houman Mahallati; Robert E Lenkinski; Neil M Rofsky
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 3.173

2.  Comparison of phased-array 3.0-T and endorectal 1.5-T magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of local staging accuracy for prostate cancer.

Authors:  Byung Kwan Park; Bohyun Kim; Chan Kyo Kim; Hyun Moo Lee; Ghee Young Kwon
Journal:  J Comput Assist Tomogr       Date:  2007 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 1.826

3.  A method for correlating in vivo prostate magnetic resonance imaging and histopathology using individualized magnetic resonance-based molds.

Authors:  Vijay Shah; Thomas Pohida; Baris Turkbey; Haresh Mani; Maria Merino; Peter A Pinto; Peter Choyke; Marcelino Bernardo
Journal:  Rev Sci Instrum       Date:  2009-10       Impact factor: 1.523

4.  Comparative evaluation between external phased array coil at 3 T and endorectal coil at 1.5 T: preliminary results.

Authors:  Pietro Torricelli; Francesco Cinquantini; Guido Ligabue; Giampaolo Bianchi; Pamela Sighinolfi; Renato Romagnoli
Journal:  J Comput Assist Tomogr       Date:  2006 May-Jun       Impact factor: 1.826

5.  Prostate cancer detection with 3-T MRI: comparison of diffusion-weighted and T2-weighted imaging.

Authors:  Huadong Miao; Hiroshi Fukatsu; Takeo Ishigaki
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  2006-11-07       Impact factor: 3.528

6.  MRI in the detection of prostate cancer: combined apparent diffusion coefficient, metabolite ratio, and vascular parameters.

Authors:  Sophie F Riches; Geoffrey S Payne; Veronica A Morgan; Samir Sandhu; Cyril Fisher; Michael Germuska; David J Collins; Alan Thompson; Nandita M deSouza
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 3.959

7.  Prostate cancer: Comparison of 3D T2-weighted with conventional 2D T2-weighted imaging for image quality and tumor detection.

Authors:  Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Jeffry Neil; Xiangtian Kong; Jonathan Melamed; James S Babb; Samir S Taneja; Bachir Taouli
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 3.959

8.  Value of diffusion-weighted imaging for the prediction of prostate cancer location at 3T using a phased-array coil: preliminary results.

Authors:  Chan Kyo Kim; Byung Kwan Park; Hyun Moo Lee; Ghee Young Kwon
Journal:  Invest Radiol       Date:  2007-12       Impact factor: 6.016

9.  Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI of prostate cancer at 3 T: a study of pharmacokinetic parameters.

Authors:  Iclal Ocak; Marcelino Bernardo; Greg Metzger; Tristan Barrett; Peter Pinto; Paul S Albert; Peter L Choyke
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2007-10       Impact factor: 3.959

Review 10.  Pathology of prostate cancer and focal therapy ('male lumpectomy').

Authors:  Roberta Mazzucchelli; Marina Scarpelli; Liang Cheng; Antonio Lopez-Beltran; Andrea B Galosi; Ziya Kirkali; Rodolfo Montironi
Journal:  Anticancer Res       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 2.480

View more
  51 in total

1.  Diffusion-weighted MRI of the prostate: advantages of Zoomed EPI with parallel-transmit-accelerated 2D-selective excitation imaging.

Authors:  Kolja M Thierfelder; Michael K Scherr; Mike Notohamiprodjo; Jakob Weiß; Olaf Dietrich; Ullrich G Mueller-Lisse; Josef Pfeuffer; Konstantin Nikolaou; Daniel Theisen
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2014-08-27       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Performance of T2 Maps in the Detection of Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Aritrick Chatterjee; Ajit Devaraj; Melvy Mathew; Teodora Szasz; Tatjana Antic; Gregory S Karczmar; Aytekin Oto
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2018-05-03       Impact factor: 3.173

Review 3.  Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Ultrasound Fusion-Guided Prostate Biopsy: Review of Technology, Techniques, and Outcomes.

Authors:  Michael Kongnyuy; Arvin K George; Ardeshir R Rastinehad; Peter A Pinto
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2016-04       Impact factor: 3.092

Review 4.  MR/US Fusion Technology: What Makes It Tick?

Authors:  Srinivas Vourganti; Norman Starkweather; Andrij Wojtowycz
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2017-03       Impact factor: 3.092

5.  From novice to expert: analyzing the learning curve for MRI-transrectal ultrasonography fusion-guided transrectal prostate biopsy.

Authors:  R Mager; M P Brandt; H Borgmann; K M Gust; A Haferkamp; M Kurosch
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2017-06-23       Impact factor: 2.370

Review 6.  Multiparametric MRI in prostate cancer management.

Authors:  Linda M Johnson; Baris Turkbey; William D Figg; Peter L Choyke
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2014-05-20       Impact factor: 66.675

Review 7.  Future Perspectives and Challenges of Prostate MR Imaging.

Authors:  Baris Turkbey; Peter L Choyke
Journal:  Radiol Clin North Am       Date:  2017-12-09       Impact factor: 2.303

Review 8.  Role of Multiparametric MR Imaging in Malignancies of the Urogenital Tract.

Authors:  Alberto Diaz de Leon; Daniel Costa; Ivan Pedrosa
Journal:  Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am       Date:  2016-02       Impact factor: 2.266

Review 9.  Computer-aided Detection of Prostate Cancer with MRI: Technology and Applications.

Authors:  Lizhi Liu; Zhiqiang Tian; Zhenfeng Zhang; Baowei Fei
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2016-04-25       Impact factor: 3.173

10.  A urologist's perspective on prostate cancer imaging: past, present, and future.

Authors:  Arvin K George; Baris Turkbey; Subin G Valayil; Akhil Muthigi; Francesca Mertan; Michael Kongnyuy; Peter A Pinto
Journal:  Abdom Radiol (NY)       Date:  2016-05
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.