Y Mazaheri1, A A Afaq2, S I Jung2, D A Goldman3, L Wang2, H Aslan2, M J Zelefsky4, O Akin2, H Hricak2. 1. Department of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA; Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. Electronic address: mazahery@mskcc.org. 2. Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 3. Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Abstract
AIM: To compare prostate volumes and distances between anatomical landmarks on MRI images obtained with a phased-array coil (PAC) only and with a PAC and an endorectal coil (ERC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Informed consent was waived for this Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant study. Fifty-nine men underwent PAC-MRI and ERC-MRI at 1.5 (n = 3) or 3 T (n = 56). On MRI images, two radiologists independently measured prostate volume and distances between the anterior rectal wall (ARW) and symphysis pubis at the level of the verumontanum; ARW and symphysis pubis at the level of the mid-symphysis pubis; and bladder neck and mid-symphysis pubis. Differences between measurements from PAC-MRI and ERC-MRI were assessed with the Wilcoxon RANK SUM test. Inter-reader agreement was assessed using the concordance correlation coefficient (CCC). RESULTS: Differences in prostate volume between PAC-MRI and ERC-MRI [median: -0.75 mm(3) (p = 0.10) and median: -0.84 mm(3) (p = 0.06) for readers 1 and 2, respectively] were not significant. For readers 1 and 2, median differences between distances were as follows: -10.20 and -12.75 mm, respectively, ARW to symphysis pubis at the level of the verumontanum; -6.60 and -6.08 mm, respectively, ARW to symphysis pubis at the level of the mid-symphysis pubis; -3 and -3 mm respectively, bladder neck to mid-symphysis pubis. All differences in distance were significant for both readers (p ≤ 0.0005). Distances were larger on PAC-MRI (p ≤ 0.0005). Inter-reader agreement regarding prostate volume was almost perfect on PAC-MRI (CCC: 0.99; 95% CI: 0.98-1.00) and ERC-MRI (CCC: 0.99; 95% CI: 0.99-1.00); inter-reader agreement for distance measurements varied (CCCs: 0.54-0.86). CONCLUSION: Measurements of distances between anatomical landmarks differed significantly between ERC-MRI and PAC-MRI, although prostate volume measurements did not.
AIM: To compare prostate volumes and distances between anatomical landmarks on MRI images obtained with a phased-array coil (PAC) only and with a PAC and an endorectal coil (ERC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Informed consent was waived for this Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant study. Fifty-nine men underwent PAC-MRI and ERC-MRI at 1.5 (n = 3) or 3 T (n = 56). On MRI images, two radiologists independently measured prostate volume and distances between the anterior rectal wall (ARW) and symphysis pubis at the level of the verumontanum; ARW and symphysis pubis at the level of the mid-symphysis pubis; and bladder neck and mid-symphysis pubis. Differences between measurements from PAC-MRI and ERC-MRI were assessed with the Wilcoxon RANK SUM test. Inter-reader agreement was assessed using the concordance correlation coefficient (CCC). RESULTS: Differences in prostate volume between PAC-MRI and ERC-MRI [median: -0.75 mm(3) (p = 0.10) and median: -0.84 mm(3) (p = 0.06) for readers 1 and 2, respectively] were not significant. For readers 1 and 2, median differences between distances were as follows: -10.20 and -12.75 mm, respectively, ARW to symphysis pubis at the level of the verumontanum; -6.60 and -6.08 mm, respectively, ARW to symphysis pubis at the level of the mid-symphysis pubis; -3 and -3 mm respectively, bladder neck to mid-symphysis pubis. All differences in distance were significant for both readers (p ≤ 0.0005). Distances were larger on PAC-MRI (p ≤ 0.0005). Inter-reader agreement regarding prostate volume was almost perfect on PAC-MRI (CCC: 0.99; 95% CI: 0.98-1.00) and ERC-MRI (CCC: 0.99; 95% CI: 0.99-1.00); inter-reader agreement for distance measurements varied (CCCs: 0.54-0.86). CONCLUSION: Measurements of distances between anatomical landmarks differed significantly between ERC-MRI and PAC-MRI, although prostate volume measurements did not.
Authors: Uulke A van der Heide; Antonetta C Houweling; Greetje Groenendaal; Regina G H Beets-Tan; Philippe Lambin Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2012-07-06 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: Ron Alterovitz; Etienne Lessard; Jean Pouliot; I-Chow Joe Hsu; James F O'Brien; Ken Goldberg Journal: Med Phys Date: 2006-11 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Stijn W T P J Heijmink; Tom W J Scheenen; Emile N J T van Lin; Andries G Visser; Lambertus A L M Kiemeney; J Alfred Witjes; Jelle O Barentsz Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2008-11-25 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Jurgen J Fütterer; Marc R Engelbrecht; Gerrit J Jager; Robert P Hartman; Bernard F King; Christina A Hulsbergen-Van de Kaa; J Alfred Witjes; Jelle O Barentsz Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2006-10-06 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Steven J DiBiase; Keya Hosseinzadeh; Rao P Gullapalli; Stephen C Jacobs; Michael J Naslund; Geoffrey N Sklar; Richard B Alexander; Cedric Yu Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2002-02-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Stijn W T P J Heijmink; Jurgen J Fütterer; Thomas Hambrock; Satoru Takahashi; Tom W J Scheenen; Henkjan J Huisman; Christina A Hulsbergen-Van de Kaa; Ben C Knipscheer; Lambertus A L M Kiemeney; J Alfred Witjes; Jelle O Barentsz Journal: Radiology Date: 2007-05-10 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: H Hricak; S White; D Vigneron; J Kurhanewicz; A Kosco; D Levin; J Weiss; P Narayan; P R Carroll Journal: Radiology Date: 1994-12 Impact factor: 11.105