Borna K Barth1, Alexander Cornelius2, Daniel Nanz1, Daniel Eberli3, Olivio F Donati4. 1. Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Zurich and University of Zurich, Raemistrasse 100, 8091, Zurich, Switzerland. 2. Department of Radiology, Cantonal Hospital Aarau, Tellstrasse, 5001, Aarau, Switzerland. 3. Department of Urology, University Hospital Zürich and University of Zurich, Raemistrasse 100, 8091, Zurich, Switzerland. 4. Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Zurich and University of Zurich, Raemistrasse 100, 8091, Zurich, Switzerland. olivio.donati@usz.ch.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare image quality (IQ) and patient discomfort during prostate MRI using a pelvic phased array (PPA) coil and an endorectal (ER) coil. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ninety-eight patients (median age, 65.7; range 42.1-78.1) underwent prostate MRI on a 3T scanner including T2w and DWI acquired with PPA and an ER coil within the same exam. Acquisition time was kept similar for both acquisitions. Two radiologists evaluated aspects of IQ on a 5-point Likert scale and classified image artifacts. All patients completed a questionnaire on discomfort/pain regarding the ER coil using a visual analogue scale from 1 to 10. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in overall IQ for T2w images for both readers (reader 1, 3.27 ± 0.91 and 3.07 ± 0.84, p = 0.057; reader 2, 3.70 ± 0.75 and 3.77 ± 0.81, p = 0.555) for PPA and ER coils, respectively. Overall IQ for DWI acquired with PPA and ER coils was rated similar by reader 1 (3.03 ± 1.10 and 3.08 ± 0.80, respectively, (p = 0.67)), while reader 2 preferred ER coil images (3.27 ± 0.81 and 3.66 ± 0.85 (p < 0.05)). Susceptibility artifacts were more frequent in ER than in PPA coil images (109 vs. 75). Discomfort and pain experienced during insertion of the ER coil was low altogether (VAS score, 3.5 ± 2.1 for "discomfort" and 2.4 ± 2.4 for "pain"). CONCLUSION: T2-weighted images may be acquired with comparable IQ using a PPA coil as compared to an ER coil, while DWI images showed better IQ using the ER coil for one of two readers. The insertion of the ER coil caused low to moderate discomfort and pain in patients.
PURPOSE: To compare image quality (IQ) and patient discomfort during prostate MRI using a pelvic phased array (PPA) coil and an endorectal (ER) coil. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ninety-eight patients (median age, 65.7; range 42.1-78.1) underwent prostate MRI on a 3T scanner including T2w and DWI acquired with PPA and an ER coil within the same exam. Acquisition time was kept similar for both acquisitions. Two radiologists evaluated aspects of IQ on a 5-point Likert scale and classified image artifacts. All patients completed a questionnaire on discomfort/pain regarding the ER coil using a visual analogue scale from 1 to 10. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in overall IQ for T2w images for both readers (reader 1, 3.27 ± 0.91 and 3.07 ± 0.84, p = 0.057; reader 2, 3.70 ± 0.75 and 3.77 ± 0.81, p = 0.555) for PPA and ER coils, respectively. Overall IQ for DWI acquired with PPA and ER coils was rated similar by reader 1 (3.03 ± 1.10 and 3.08 ± 0.80, respectively, (p = 0.67)), while reader 2 preferred ER coil images (3.27 ± 0.81 and 3.66 ± 0.85 (p < 0.05)). Susceptibility artifacts were more frequent in ER than in PPA coil images (109 vs. 75). Discomfort and pain experienced during insertion of the ER coil was low altogether (VAS score, 3.5 ± 2.1 for "discomfort" and 2.4 ± 2.4 for "pain"). CONCLUSION: T2-weighted images may be acquired with comparable IQ using a PPA coil as compared to an ER coil, while DWI images showed better IQ using the ER coil for one of two readers. The insertion of the ER coil caused low to moderate discomfort and pain in patients.
Entities:
Keywords:
Endorectal coil; Patient discomfort; Prostate MRI; Prostate cancer
Authors: Borna K Barth; Pieter J L De Visschere; Alexander Cornelius; Carlos Nicolau; Hebert Alberto Vargas; Daniel Eberli; Olivio F Donati Journal: Radiology Date: 2017-03-27 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Borna K Barth; Niels J Rupp; Alexander Cornelius; Daniel Nanz; Rainer Grobholz; Martin Schmidtpeter; Peter J Wild; Daniel Eberli; Olivio F Donati Journal: Curr Urol Date: 2019-03-08
Authors: Edward W Johnston; Elisenda Bonet-Carne; Uran Ferizi; Ben Yvernault; Hayley Pye; Dominic Patel; Joey Clemente; Wivijin Piga; Susan Heavey; Harbir S Sidhu; Francesco Giganti; James O'Callaghan; Mrishta Brizmohun Appayya; Alistair Grey; Alexandra Saborowska; Sebastien Ourselin; David Hawkes; Caroline M Moore; Mark Emberton; Hashim U Ahmed; Hayley Whitaker; Manuel Rodriguez-Justo; Alexander Freeman; David Atkinson; Daniel Alexander; Eleftheria Panagiotaki; Shonit Punwani Journal: Radiology Date: 2019-04-02 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Daniel Stocker; Andrei Manoliu; Anton S Becker; Borna K Barth; Daniel Nanz; Markus Klarhöfer; Olivio F Donati Journal: Eur J Radiol Open Date: 2021-02-03
Authors: Armando Stabile; Francesco Giganti; Veeru Kasivisvanathan; Gianluca Giannarini; Caroline M Moore; Anwar R Padhani; Valeria Panebianco; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Georg Salomon; Baris Turkbey; Geert Villeirs; Jelle O Barentsz Journal: Eur Urol Oncol Date: 2020-03-17
Authors: Francesco Giganti; Veeru Kasivisvanathan; Alex Kirkham; Shonit Punwani; Mark Emberton; Caroline M Moore; Clare Allen Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2021-07-08 Impact factor: 3.039