MRI of prostate cancer at 1.5 and 3.0 T: comparison of image quality in tumor detection and staging.

OBJECTIVE This prospective study was performed to compare the image quality, tumor delineation, and depiction of staging criteria on MRI of prostate cancer at 1.5 and 3.0 T. SUBJECTS AND METHODS Twenty-four patients with prostate cancer underwent MRI at 1.5 T using the combined endorectal-body phased-array coil and at 3.0 T using the torso phased-array coil, among them 22 before undergoing radical prostatectomy. The prostate was imaged with T2-weighted sequences in axial and coronal orientations at both field strengths and, in addition, with an axial T1-weighted sequence at 1.5 T. Preoperative analysis of all MR images taken together was compared with the histologic findings to determine the accuracy of MRI for the local staging of prostate cancer. In a retroanalysis, the image quality, tumor delineation, and conspicuity of staging criteria were determined separately for both field strengths and compared. Statistical analysis was performed using Wilcoxon's and the McNemar tests. RESULTS In the preoperative analysis, MRI (at both 1.5 and 3.0 T) had an accuracy of 73% for the local staging of prostate cancer. The retroanalysis yielded significantly better results for 1.5-T MRI with the endorectal-body phased-array coil in terms of image quality (p < 0.001) and tumor delineation (p = 0.012) than for 3.0-T MRI with the torso phased-array coil. Analysis of the individual staging criteria for extracapsular disease did not reveal a superiority of either of the two field strengths in the depiction of any of the criteria. CONCLUSION Intraindividual comparison shows that image quality and delineation of prostate cancer at 1.5 T with the use of an endorectal coil in a pelvic phased-array is superior to the higher field strength of 3.0 T with a torso phased-array coil alone. As long as no endorectal coil is available for 3-T imaging, imaging at 1.5 T using the combined endorectal-body phased-array coil will continue to be the gold standard for prostate imaging.

[1]  Matt A Bernstein,et al.  Imaging artifacts at 3.0T , 2006, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[2]  Dennis W J Klomp,et al.  Initial Experience of 3 Tesla Endorectal Coil Magnetic Resonance Imaging and 1H-Spectroscopic Imaging of the Prostate , 2004, Investigative radiology.

[3]  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.

[4]  Michael W Kattan,et al.  Prostate cancer: detection of extracapsular extension by genitourinary and general body radiologists at MR imaging. , 2004, Radiology.

[5]  Chinyere N. Onyebuchi,et al.  Suspected local recurrence after radical prostatectomy: endorectal coil MR imaging. , 2004, Radiology.

[6]  Jacob Sosna,et al.  Determinations of prostate volume at 3-Tesla using an external phased array coil: comparison to pathologic specimens. , 2003, Academic radiology.

[7]  Hee-Won Kim,et al.  In Vivo Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy at 3 Tesla Using a Transceive Pelvic Phased Array Coil: Preliminary Results , 2003, Investigative radiology.

[8]  Ralph Weissleder,et al.  Noninvasive detection of clinically occult lymph-node metastases in prostate cancer. , 2003, The New England journal of medicine.

[9]  D. Beyersdorff,et al.  [MRI of prostate cancer using three different coil systems: image quality, tumor detection, and staging]. , 2003, RoFo : Fortschritte auf dem Gebiete der Rontgenstrahlen und der Nuklearmedizin.

[10]  Bernd Hamm,et al.  Patients with a history of elevated prostate-specific antigen levels and negative transrectal US-guided quadrant or sextant biopsy results: value of MR imaging. , 2002, Radiology.

[11]  H. Hricak,et al.  Brachytherapy for prostate cancer: endorectal MR imaging of local treatment-related changes. , 2001, Radiology.

[12]  M. Resnick,et al.  Analysis of recent trends in prostate cancer incidence and mortality , 2000, The Prostate.

[13]  K. Badani,et al.  Prospective evaluation of endorectal magnetic resonance imaging to detect tumor foci in men with prior negative prostastic biopsy: a pilot study. , 2000, The Journal of urology.

[14]  H. Gruber,et al.  Value of transrectal ultrasound in preoperative staging of prostate cancer. , 1999, Minerva urologica e nefrologica = The Italian journal of urology and nephrology.

[15]  J R Thornbury,et al.  Dynamic TurboFLASH subtraction technique for contrast-enhanced MR imaging of the prostate: correlation with histopathologic results. , 1997, Radiology.

[16]  R Alagappan,et al.  Detection of extracapsular extension of prostate carcinoma with endorectal and phased-array coil MR imaging: multivariate feature analysis. , 1997, Radiology.

[17]  G. P. Krestin,et al.  Präoperatives T-Staging des Prostatakarzinoms: Endorektale Magnetresonanztomographie im Vergleich zu anderen biidgebenden und klinischen Methoden , 1996 .

[18]  J R Thornbury,et al.  Local staging of prostate cancer with endorectal MR imaging: correlation with histopathology. , 1996, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[19]  P. Carroll,et al.  Local staging of prostatic carcinoma: comparison of transrectal sonography and endorectal MR imaging. , 1996, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[20]  P. Carroll,et al.  Prostate cancer: effect of postbiopsy hemorrhage on interpretation of MR images. , 1995, Radiology.

[21]  Gabriel P. Krestin,et al.  Contrast‐Enhanced Endorectal Coil MRI in Local Staging of Prostate Carcinoma , 1995, Journal of computer assisted tomography.

[22]  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.

[23]  D. Mitchell,et al.  Prostate carcinoma: assessment of diagnostic criteria for capsular penetration on endorectal coil MR images. , 1994, Radiology.

[24]  V. Nicolas,et al.  MR-Tomographie des Prostatakarzinoms - Vergleich konventionelle und endorektale MRT , 1994 .

[25]  J. Barentsz,et al.  Preliminary results of endorectal surface coil magnetic resonance imaging for local staging of prostate cancer. , 1994, Der Radiologe.

[26]  S. F. Quinn,et al.  MR imaging of prostate cancer with an endorectal surface coil technique: correlation with whole-mount specimens. , 1994, Radiology.

[27]  C. Tempany,et al.  Invasion of the neurovascular bundle by prostate cancer: evaluation with MR imaging. , 1991, Radiology.

[28]  R E Lenkinski,et al.  Prostate cancer: local staging with endorectal surface coil MR imaging. , 1991, Radiology.

[29]  R E Lenkinski,et al.  Prostate: MR imaging with an endorectal surface coil. , 1989, Radiology.

[30]  L. Axel,et al.  Prostatic disorders: MR imaging at 1.5 T. , 1987, Radiology.

[31]  M. Resnick,et al.  NMR scanning of the pelvis: initial experience with a 0.3 T system. , 1983, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[32]  R D Williams,et al.  Anatomy and pathology of the male pelvis by magnetic resonance imaging. , 1983, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.