Zarine K Shah1, Saba N Elias1, Ronney Abaza2, Debra L Zynger3, Lawrence A DeRenne3, Michael V Knopp1, Beibei Guo4, Ryan Schurr5, Steven B Heymsfield6, Guang Jia7. 1. Department of Radiology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. 2. OhioHealth Dublin Methodist Hospital, Dublin, Ohio. 3. Department of Pathology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. 4. Department of Experimental Statistics, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. 5. Department of Physics and Astronomy, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70803. 6. Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. 7. Department of Physics and Astronomy, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70803; Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Electronic address: gjia@lsu.edu.
Abstract
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To compare prostate morphology, image quality, and diagnostic performance of 1.5-T endorectal coil magnetic resonance (MR) imaging (MRI) and 3.0-T nonendorectal coil MRI in patients with prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: MR images obtained of 83 patients with prostate cancer using 1.5-T MRI systems with an endorectal coil were compared to images collected from 83 patients with a 3.0-T MRI system. Prostate diameters were measured, and image quality was evaluated by one American Board of Radiology (ABR)-certified radiologist (reader 1) and one ABR-certified diagnostic medical physicist (reader 2). The likelihood of the presence of peripheral zone cancer in each sextant and local extent was rated and compared to histopathologic findings. RESULTS: Prostate anterior-posterior diameter measured by both readers was significantly shorter with 1.5-T endorectal MRI than with 3.0-T MRI. The overall image quality score difference was significant only for reader 1. Both readers found that the two MRI systems provided a similar diagnostic accuracy in cancer localization, extraprostatic extension, and seminal vesicle involvement. CONCLUSIONS: Nonendorectal coil 3.0-T MRI provides prostate images that are natural in shape and that have comparable image quality to those obtained at 1.5 T with an endorectal coil, but not superior diagnostic performance. These findings suggest an opportunity exists for improving technical aspects of the 3.0-T prostate MRI.
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To compare prostate morphology, image quality, and diagnostic performance of 1.5-T endorectal coil magnetic resonance (MR) imaging (MRI) and 3.0-T nonendorectal coil MRI in patients with prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: MR images obtained of 83 patients with prostate cancer using 1.5-T MRI systems with an endorectal coil were compared to images collected from 83 patients with a 3.0-T MRI system. Prostate diameters were measured, and image quality was evaluated by one American Board of Radiology (ABR)-certified radiologist (reader 1) and one ABR-certified diagnostic medical physicist (reader 2). The likelihood of the presence of peripheral zone cancer in each sextant and local extent was rated and compared to histopathologic findings. RESULTS: Prostate anterior-posterior diameter measured by both readers was significantly shorter with 1.5-T endorectal MRI than with 3.0-T MRI. The overall image quality score difference was significant only for reader 1. Both readers found that the two MRI systems provided a similar diagnostic accuracy in cancer localization, extraprostatic extension, and seminal vesicle involvement. CONCLUSIONS: Nonendorectal coil 3.0-T MRI provides prostate images that are natural in shape and that have comparable image quality to those obtained at 1.5 T with an endorectal coil, but not superior diagnostic performance. These findings suggest an opportunity exists for improving technical aspects of the 3.0-T prostate MRI.
Authors: B Nicolas Bloch; Neil M Rofsky; Ronaldo H Baroni; Robert P Marquis; Ivan Pedrosa; Robert E Lenkinski Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2004-08 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Jurgen J Fütterer; Tom W J Scheenen; Henkjan J Huisman; Dennis W J Klomp; Ferdi A van Dorsten; Christina A Hulsbergen-van de Kaa; J Alfred Witjes; Arend Heerschap; Jelle O Barentsz Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2004-11 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Jurgen J Fütterer; Stijn W T P J Heijmink; Tom W J Scheenen; Jeroen Veltman; Henkjan J Huisman; Pieter Vos; Christina A Hulsbergen-Van de Kaa; J Alfred Witjes; Paul F M Krabbe; Arend Heerschap; Jelle O Barentsz Journal: Radiology Date: 2006-09-11 Impact factor: 11.105
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: 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
Authors: Hatim Chafi; Saba N Elias; Huyen T Nguyen; Harry T Friel; Michael V Knopp; BeiBei Guo; Steven B Heymsfield; Guang Jia Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2015-06-09 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: T Ullrich; M Quentin; A K Schmaltz; C Arsov; C Rubbert; D Blondin; R Rabenalt; P Albers; G Antoch; L Schimmöller Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2017-07-07 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Jiří Stejskal; Vanda Adamcová; Miroslav Záleský; Vojtěch Novák; Otakar Čapoun; Vojtěch Fiala; Olga Dolejšová; Hana Sedláčková; Štěpán Veselý; Roman Zachoval Journal: World J Urol Date: 2020-08-06 Impact factor: 4.226