Advertisement

Performance Comparison of 1.5-T Endorectal Coil MRI with 3.0-T Nonendorectal Coil MRI in Patients with Prostate Cancer

Published:January 08, 2015DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2014.11.007

      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.

      Key Words

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Academic Radiology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Siegel R.
        • Ma J.
        • Zou Z.
        • et al.
        Cancer statistics, 2014.
        CA Cancer J Clin. 2014; 64: 9-29
        • Mazaheri Y.
        • Shukla-Dave A.
        • Muellner A.
        • et al.
        MRI of the prostate: clinical relevance and emerging applications.
        J Magn Reson Imaging. 2011; 33: 258-274
        • Hricak H.
        • Choyke P.L.
        • Eberhardt S.C.
        • et al.
        Imaging prostate cancer: a multidisciplinary perspective.
        Radiology. 2007; 243: 28-53
        • Hricak H.
        • White S.
        • Vigneron D.
        • et al.
        Carcinoma of the prostate gland: MR imaging with pelvic phased-array coils versus integrated endorectal–pelvic phased-array coils.
        Radiology. 1994; 193: 703-709
        • Rajesh A.
        • Coakley F.V.
        MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging of prostate cancer.
        Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2004; 12: 557-579
        • Heijmink S.W.
        • Scheenen T.W.
        • van Lin E.N.
        • et al.
        Changes in prostate shape and volume and their implications for radiotherapy after introduction of endorectal balloon as determined by MRI at 3T.
        Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009; 73: 1446-1453
        • Hensel J.M.
        • Menard C.
        • Chung P.W.
        • et al.
        Development of multiorgan finite element-based prostate deformation model enabling registration of endorectal coil magnetic resonance imaging for radiotherapy planning.
        Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007; 68: 1522-1528
        • Park B.K.
        • Kim B.
        • Kim C.K.
        • et al.
        Comparison of phased-array 3.0-T and endorectal 1.5-T magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of local staging accuracy for prostate cancer.
        J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2007; 31: 534-538
        • Rouviere O.
        • Hartman R.P.
        • Lyonnet D.
        Prostate MR imaging at high-field strength: evolution or revolution?.
        Eur Radiol. 2006; 16: 276-284
        • Beyersdorff D.
        • Taymoorian K.
        • Knosel T.
        • et al.
        MRI of prostate cancer at 1.5 and 3.0 T: comparison of image quality in tumor detection and staging.
        Am J Roentgenol. 2005; 185: 1214-1220
        • Sosna J.
        • Pedrosa I.
        • Dewolf W.C.
        • et al.
        MR imaging of the prostate at 3 Tesla: comparison of an external phased-array coil to imaging with an endorectal coil at 1.5 Tesla.
        Acad Radiol. 2004; 11: 857-862
        • Torricelli P.
        • Cinquantini F.
        • Ligabue G.
        • et al.
        Comparative evaluation between external phased array coil at 3 T and endorectal coil at 1.5 T: preliminary results.
        J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2006; 30: 355-361
        • Tahmasebi A.M.
        • Sharifi R.
        • Agarwal H.K.
        • et al.
        A statistical model-based technique for accounting for prostate gland deformation in endorectal coil-based MR imaging.
        Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2012; 2012: 5412-5415
        • Weinreb J.C.
        • Blume J.D.
        • Coakley F.V.
        • et al.
        Prostate cancer: sextant localization at MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging before prostatectomy–results of ACRIN prospective multi-institutional clinicopathologic study.
        Radiology. 2009; 251: 122-133
        • Jia G.
        • Abaza R.
        • Williams J.D.
        • et al.
        Amide proton transfer MR imaging of prostate cancer: a preliminary study.
        J Magn Reson Imaging. 2011; 33: 647-654
        • Pantanowitz L.
        • Sinard J.H.
        • Henricks W.H.
        • et al.
        Validating whole slide imaging for diagnostic purposes in pathology: guideline from the College of American Pathologists Pathology and Laboratory Quality Center.
        Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2013; 137: 1710-1722
        • Robin X.
        • Turck N.
        • Hainard A.
        • et al.
        pROC: an open-source package for R and S+ to analyze and compare ROC curves.
        Bmc Bioinformatics. 2011; 12: 77
        • Wu X.
        • Dibiase S.J.
        • Gullapalli R.
        • et al.
        Deformable image registration for the use of magnetic resonance spectroscopy in prostate treatment planning.
        Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2004; 58: 1577-1583
        • Bharatha A.
        • Hirose M.
        • Hata N.
        • et al.
        Evaluation of three-dimensional finite element-based deformable registration of pre- and intraoperative prostate imaging.
        Med Phys. 2001; 28: 2551-2560
        • Pursley J.
        • Risholm P.
        • Fedorov A.
        • et al.
        A Bayesian nonrigid registration method to enhance intraoperative target definition in image-guided prostate procedures through uncertainty characterization.
        Med Phys. 2012; 39: 6858-6867
        • Hirose M.
        • Bharatha A.
        • Hata N.
        • et al.
        Quantitative MR imaging assessment of prostate gland deformation before and during MR imaging-guided brachytherapy.
        Acad Radiol. 2002; 9: 906-912
        • Schreibmann E.
        • Xing L.
        Narrow band deformable registration of prostate magnetic resonance imaging, magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging, and computed tomography studies.
        Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005; 62: 595-605
        • Brock K.K.
        • Nichol A.M.
        • Menard C.
        • et al.
        Accuracy and sensitivity of finite element model-based deformable registration of the prostate.
        Med Phys. 2008; 35: 4019-4025
        • Husband J.E.
        • Padhani A.R.
        • MacVicar A.D.
        • et al.
        Magnetic resonance imaging of prostate cancer: comparison of image quality using endorectal and pelvic phased array coils.
        Clin Radiol. 1998; 53: 673-681
        • Heijmink S.W.
        • Futterer J.J.
        • Hambrock T.
        • et al.
        Prostate cancer: body-array versus endorectal coil MR imaging at 3 T–comparison of image quality, localization, and staging performance.
        Radiology. 2007; 244: 184-195
        • Rosenkrantz A.B.
        • Bennett G.L.
        • Doshi A.
        • et al.
        T2-weighted imaging of the prostate: impact of the BLADE technique on image quality and tumor assessment.
        Abdom Imaging. 2014;
        • Turkbey B.
        • Merino M.J.
        • Gallardo E.C.
        • et al.
        Comparison of endorectal coil and nonendorectal coil T2W and diffusion-weighted MRI at 3 Tesla for localizing prostate cancer: correlation with whole-mount histopathology.
        J Magn Reson Imaging. 2013;
        • Bloch B.N.
        • Rofsky N.M.
        • Baroni R.H.
        • et al.
        3 Tesla magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate with combined pelvic phased-array and endorectal coils: initial experience.
        Acad Radiol. 2004; 11: 863-867
        • Futterer J.J.
        • Scheenen T.W.
        • Huisman H.J.
        • et al.
        Initial experience of 3 tesla endorectal coil magnetic resonance imaging and 1H-spectroscopic imaging of the prostate.
        Invest Radiol. 2004; 39: 671-680
        • Kim D.Y.
        • Schnall M.D.
        • Rosen M.A.
        • et al.
        Prostate MR imaging at 3T with a longitudinal array endorectal surface coil and phased array body coil.
        J Magn Reson Imaging. 2008; 27: 1327-1330
        • Futterer J.J.
        • Heijmink S.W.
        • Scheenen T.W.
        • et al.
        Prostate cancer localization with dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging and proton MR spectroscopic imaging.
        Radiology. 2006; 241: 449-458
        • Futterer J.J.
        • Engelbrecht M.R.
        • Jager G.J.
        • et al.
        Prostate cancer: comparison of local staging accuracy of pelvic phased-array coil alone versus integrated endorectal-pelvic phased-array coils. Local staging accuracy of prostate cancer using endorectal coil MR imaging.
        EurRadiol. 2007; 17: 1055-1065
        • Serai S.D.
        • Merrow A.C.
        • Kline-Fath B.M.
        Fetal MRI on a multi-element digital coil platform.
        Pediatr Radiol. 2013; 43: 1213-1217
        • Dickinson L.
        • Ahmed H.U.
        • Allen C.
        • et al.
        Magnetic resonance imaging for the detection, localisation, and characterisation of prostate cancer: recommendations from a European consensus meeting.
        Eur Urol. 2011; 59: 477-494