Literature DB >> 32300836

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

Valdair Francisco Muglia1, Hebert Alberto Vargas2.   

Abstract

The question referred to in the title of this article is a relatively common situation when performing prostate MRI in some healthcare settings. Moreover, the answer is not always straightforward. The decisions on type of receiver coil for prostate MRI and whether or not an endorectal coil (ERC) should be used is based on several factors. These relate to the patient (e.g., body habitus, presence of metallic devices in the pelvis), the focus of the exam (diagnosis, staging, recurrence), and characteristics of the MRI system (e.g., magnetic field strength and hardware components including coil design and number of elements/channels available in the surface coil). Historically, the combined use of an ERC and a surface coil was the optimal combination for maximizing the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), particularly for low-strength magnetic fields (1.5T). However, there are several disadvantages associated with the use of an ERC, and several studies have advocated equivalent clinical performance of modern MRI systems for diagnosis and staging of prostate cancer (PCa), either with ERC or surface alone. Accordingly, there is a wide variation in the precise imaging technique across institutions. This article focuses on the most relevant aspects of the decision of whether to use an ERC for PCa MR imaging.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Image quality; Magnetic resonance imaging; Multiparametric MRI; Prostate cancer

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32300836     DOI: 10.1007/s00261-020-02528-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Abdom Radiol (NY)


  19 in total

1.  3 Tesla magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate with combined pelvic phased-array and endorectal coils; Initial experience(1).

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

2.  T2- and diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging at 3T for the detection of prostate cancer with and without endorectal coil: An intraindividual comparison of image quality and diagnostic performance.

Authors:  Alexander D J Baur; Tareef Daqqaq; Moritz Wagner; Andreas Maxeiner; Alexander Huppertz; Diane Renz; Bernd Hamm; Thomas Fischer; Tahir Durmus
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  2016-03-19       Impact factor: 3.528

3.  Magnetic resonance imaging of prostate cancer: comparison of image quality using endorectal and pelvic phased array coils.

Authors:  J E Husband; A R Padhani; A D MacVicar; P Revell
Journal:  Clin Radiol       Date:  1998-09       Impact factor: 2.350

4.  An MRI denoising method using image data redundancy and local SNR estimation.

Authors:  Hosein M Golshan; Reza P R Hasanzadeh; Shahrokh C Yousefzadeh
Journal:  Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2013-05-10       Impact factor: 2.546

5.  Clinical Utility of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging as the First-line Tool for Men with High Clinical Suspicion of Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Valeria Panebianco; Maria C Valerio; Alessandro Giuliani; Martina Pecoraro; Isabella Ceravolo; Giovanni Barchetti; Carlo Catalano; Anwar R Padhani
Journal:  Eur Urol Oncol       Date:  2018-05-15

Review 6.  PI-RADS Steering Committee: The PI-RADS Multiparametric MRI and MRI-directed Biopsy Pathway.

Authors:  Anwar R Padhani; Jelle Barentsz; Geert Villeirs; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Daniel J Margolis; Baris Turkbey; Harriet C Thoeny; François Cornud; Masoom A Haider; Katarzyna J Macura; Clare M Tempany; Sadhna Verma; Jeffrey C Weinreb
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2019-06-11       Impact factor: 11.105

7.  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.

Authors:  Sohrab Afshari Mirak; Sepideh Shakeri; Amirhossein Mohammadian Bajgiran; Ely R Felker; Kyung Hyun Sung; Nazanin Hajarol Asvadi; Pooria Khoshnoodi; Daniela Markovic; Danielle Ponzini; Preeti Ahuja; Anthony Sisk; Robert E Reiter; David Lu; Steven S Raman
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2019-03       Impact factor: 7.450

8.  Image Quality and Geometric Distortion of Modern Diffusion-Weighted Imaging Sequences in Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Prostate.

Authors:  Daniel Stocker; Andrei Manoliu; Anton S Becker; Borna K Barth; Daniel Nanz; Markus Klarhöfer; Olivio F Donati
Journal:  Invest Radiol       Date:  2018-04       Impact factor: 6.016

9.  Imaging obese patients: problems and solutions.

Authors:  Laura R Carucci
Journal:  Abdom Imaging       Date:  2013-08

Review 10.  MRI in prostate cancer diagnosis: do we need to add standard sampling? A review of the last 5 years.

Authors:  Armando Stabile; Francesco Giganti; Mark Emberton; Caroline M Moore
Journal:  Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis       Date:  2018-08-13       Impact factor: 5.554

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.