Impact of the use of an endorectal coil for 3 T prostate MRI on image quality and cancer detection rate

This work aims to assess the impact of an additional endorectal coil on image quality and cancer detection rate within the same patients. At a single academic medical center, this transversal study included 41 men who underwent T2- and diffusion-weighted imaging at 3 T using surface coils only or in combination with an endorectal coil in the same session. Two blinded readers (A and B) randomly evaluated all image data in separate sessions. Image quality with respect to localization and staging was rated on a five-point scale. Lesions were classified according to their prostate imaging reporting and data system (PIRADS) score version 1. Standard of reference was provided by whole-mount step-section analysis. Mean image quality scores averaged over all localization-related items were significantly higher with additional endorectal coil for both readers (p < 0.001), corresponding staging-related items were only higher for reader B (p < 0.001). With an endorectal coil, the rate of correctly detecting cancer per patient was significantly higher for reader B (p < 0.001) but not for reader A (p = 0.219). The numbers of histologically confirmed tumor lesions were rather similar for both settings. The subjectively rated 3-T image quality was improved with an endorectal coil. In terms of diagnostic performance, the use of an additional endorectal coil was not superior.

[1]  Derya Yakar,et al.  Initial Results of 3-Dimensional 1H-Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopic Imaging in the Localization of Prostate Cancer at 3 Tesla: Should We Use an Endorectal Coil? , 2011, Investigative radiology.

[2]  C. Catalano,et al.  Conventional imaging and multiparametric magnetic resonance (MRI, MRS, DWI, MRP) in the diagnosis of prostate cancer. , 2012, The quarterly journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging : official publication of the Italian Association of Nuclear Medicine (AIMN) [and] the International Association of Radiopharmacology (IAR), [and] Section of the Society of....

[3]  T. Scheenen,et al.  Prostate cancer: local staging at 3-T endorectal MR imaging--early experience. , 2006, Radiology.

[4]  M. Knopp,et al.  Performance comparison of 1.5-T endorectal coil MRI with 3.0-T nonendorectal coil MRI in patients with prostate cancer. , 2015, Academic radiology.

[5]  T. Scheenen,et al.  Three-dimensional proton MR spectroscopy of human prostate at 3 T without endorectal coil: feasibility. , 2007, Radiology.

[6]  P. Choyke,et al.  Prostate cancer: value of multiparametric MR imaging at 3 T for detection--histopathologic correlation. , 2010, Radiology.

[7]  Namkug Kim,et al.  Apparent diffusion coefficient: Prostate cancer versus noncancerous tissue according to anatomical region , 2008, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[8]  Baris Turkbey,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 , 2014, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[9]  A. Prando Prostate tumor volume measurement with combined T2-weighted imaging and diffusion-weighted MR: correlation with pathologic tumor volume , 2009 .

[10]  P. Carroll,et al.  Carcinoma of the prostate gland: MR imaging with pelvic phased-array coils versus integrated endorectal--pelvic phased-array coils. , 1994, Radiology.

[11]  C. Kim,et al.  High-b-value diffusion-weighted imaging at 3 T to detect prostate cancer: comparisons between b values of 1,000 and 2,000 s/mm2. , 2010, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[12]  Jelle O. Barentsz,et al.  Local staging of prostate cancer using magnetic resonance imaging: a meta-analysis , 2002, European Radiology.

[13]  J. Fütterer,et al.  ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012 , 2012, European Radiology.

[14]  Baris Turkbey,et al.  Is apparent diffusion coefficient associated with clinical risk scores for prostate cancers that are visible on 3-T MR images? , 2011, Radiology.

[15]  Leslie H. Sobin,et al.  Comprar TNM Classification of Malignant Tumours, 7th Edition | C. Wittekind | 9781444332414 | Wiley , 2009 .

[16]  Thomas Hambrock,et al.  Prostate cancer: body-array versus endorectal coil MR imaging at 3 T--comparison of image quality, localization, and staging performance. , 2007, Radiology.

[17]  B. Carey,et al.  Magnetic resonance imaging for the detection, localisation, and characterisation of prostate cancer: recommendations from a European consensus meeting. , 2011, European urology.

[18]  Thomas Hambrock,et al.  Prostate cancer: multiparametric MR imaging for detection, localization, and staging. , 2011, Radiology.

[19]  Jason A Koutcher,et al.  Prostate tumor volume measurement with combined T2-weighted imaging and diffusion-weighted MR: correlation with pathologic tumor volume. , 2009, Radiology.

[20]  B. Nicolas Bloch,et al.  3 Tesla magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate with combined pelvic phased-array and endorectal coils; Initial experience(1). , 2004, Academic radiology.

[21]  M. Moche,et al.  Diagnostic value of ADC in patients with prostate cancer: influence of the choice of b values , 2012, European Radiology.

[22]  T. Metens,et al.  What is the optimal b value in diffusion-weighted MR imaging to depict prostate cancer at 3T? , 2012, European Radiology.

[23]  Bum Soo Kim,et al.  Comparison of Pelvic Phased-Array versus Endorectal Coil Magnetic Resonance Imaging at 3 Tesla for Local Staging of Prostate Cancer , 2012, Yonsei medical journal.

[24]  A. Evans,et al.  Prostate cancer detection with multi‐parametric MRI: Logistic regression analysis of quantitative T2, diffusion‐weighted imaging, and dynamic contrast‐enhanced MRI , 2009, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[25]  A. D'Amico,et al.  Guideline for the management of clinically localized prostate cancer: 2007 update. , 2007, The Journal of urology.

[26]  A. Villers,et al.  Dynamic contrast enhanced, pelvic phased array magnetic resonance imaging of localized prostate cancer for predicting tumor volume: correlation with radical prostatectomy findings. , 2006, The Journal of urology.

[27]  Thomas Hambrock,et al.  Relationship between apparent diffusion coefficients at 3.0-T MR imaging and Gleason grade in peripheral zone prostate cancer. , 2011, Radiology.

[28]  M. Sumura,et al.  Usefulness of diffusion-weighted imaging and dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of prostate transition-zone cancer , 2008, Acta radiologica.