Literature DB >> 30273608

Three Tesla Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Comparison of Performance with and without Endorectal Coil for Prostate Cancer Detection, PI-RADS™ version 2 Category and Staging with Whole Mount Histopathology Correlation.

Sohrab Afshari Mirak1, Sepideh Shakeri1, Amirhossein Mohammadian Bajgiran1, Ely R Felker1, Kyung Hyun Sung1, Nazanin Hajarol Asvadi1, Pooria Khoshnoodi1, Daniela Markovic2, Danielle Ponzini1, Preeti Ahuja1, Anthony Sisk3, Robert E Reiter4, David Lu1, Steven S Raman1.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: We investigated the performance of 3 Tesla multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging with and without an endorectal coil to detect prostate cancer with a whole mount histopathology reference.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) compliant, institutional review board approved, case-control study included patients who underwent 3 Tesla multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging with and without an endorectal coil from July 2009 to December 2016 prior to prostatectomy. The tumor detection rate was calculated for total and index lesions. Lesion magnetic resonance imaging and histopathology features were compared between the 2 groups. Using SPSS®, version 24 p <0.05 was considered significant.
RESULTS: A total of 871 whole mount histopathology lesions in 429 patients with a mean ± SD age of 61.8 ± 7 years were included in analysis. The subcohorts with and without an endorectal coil comprised 260 and 169 patients with a total of 529 and 342 lesions, respectively. The overall tumor detection rates in all patients, and in the endorectal coil and nonendorectal coil subcohorts were 49.6% (432 of 871 patients), 50.5% (267 of 529) and 48.2% (165 of 342), respectively. The index tumor detection rates overall, and in the endorectal coil and nonendorectal coil subcohorts were 77.6% (333 of 429 patients), 78.5% (204 of 260) and 76.3% (129 of 169), respectively. In the endorectal coil and nonendorectal coil subcohorts we detected 35.9% (66 of 184) and 48.4% (76 of 157) of anterior lesions (p = 0.019), 58% (200 of 345) and 48.1% (89 of 185) of posterior lesions (p = 0.025), 37.3% (41 of 110) and 54.4% (62 of 114) of transition zone lesions (p = 0.010), and 53.7% (225 of 419) and 45.2% (103 of 228) of peripheral lesions (p = 0.033), respectively. After adjusting for clinical and pathological factors the endorectal coil group only showed higher detection of peripheral and posterior prostate cancer.
CONCLUSIONS: We found that 3 Tesla multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging with and without an endorectal coil had similar detection of overall and index prostate cancer. However, the endorectal coil subcohort had significantly higher detection of posterior and peripheral prostate cancer, and lower detection of anterior and transition zone prostate cancer.

Entities:  

Keywords:  anal canal; diagnostic imaging; magnetic resonance imaging; neoplasm grading; prostatic neoplasms

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30273608     DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2018.09.054

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Urol        ISSN: 0022-5347            Impact factor:   7.450


  6 in total

Review 1.  Developing a National Center of Excellence for Prostate Imaging.

Authors:  Annerleim Walton-Diaz; Manuel Madariaga-Venegas; Nicolas Aviles; Juan Carlos Roman; Ivan Gallegos; Mauricio Burotto
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2019-09-02       Impact factor: 3.092

Review 2.  Doctor, a patient is on the phone asking about the endorectal coil!

Authors:  Valdair Francisco Muglia; Hebert Alberto Vargas
Journal:  Abdom Radiol (NY)       Date:  2020-12

Review 3.  Prostate MRI: Is Endorectal Coil Necessary?-A Review.

Authors:  Grace Lee; Aytekin Oto; Mihai Giurcanu
Journal:  Life (Basel)       Date:  2022-04-11

4.  Detectability of prostate cancer in different parts of the gland with 3-Tesla multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: correlation with whole-mount histopathology.

Authors:  Katsuhiro Ito; Akihiro Furuta; Akira Kido; Yuki Teramoto; Shusuke Akamatsu; Naoki Terada; Toshinari Yamasaki; Takahiro Inoue; Osamu Ogawa; Takashi Kobayashi
Journal:  Int J Clin Oncol       Date:  2019-12-02       Impact factor: 3.402

5.  Factors Influencing Variability in the Performance of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Detecting Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Literature Review.

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

6.  Quality Comparison of 3 Tesla multiparametric MRI of the prostate using a flexible surface receiver coil versus conventional surface coil plus endorectal coil setup.

Authors:  T Ullrich; M D Kohli; M A Ohliger; K Magudia; S S Arora; T Barrett; L K Bittencourt; D J Margolis; L Schimmöller; B Turkbey; A C Westphalen
Journal:  Abdom Radiol (NY)       Date:  2020-07-21
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.