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

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.

[1]  I. Balslev,et al.  Prostate cancer: 1.5 T endo-coil dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI and MR spectroscopy--correlation with prostate biopsy and prostatectomy histopathological data. , 2011, European journal of radiology.

[2]  Jacob Sosna,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. , 2004, Academic radiology.

[3]  D. Margolis,et al.  MR Spectroscopic Imaging of Peripheral Zone in Prostate Cancer Using a 3T MRI Scanner: Endorectal versus External Phased Array Coils , 2013, Magnetic resonance insights.

[4]  C. Roehrborn,et al.  Comparison of prostate cancer detection at 3-T MRI with and without an endorectal coil: A prospective, paired-patient study. , 2016, Urologic oncology.

[5]  Local Staging of Prostatic Carcinoma: Comparison of Transrectal Sonography and Endorectal MR Imaging , 1996 .

[6]  Baris Turkbey,et al.  Accuracy and agreement of PIRADSv2 for prostate cancer mpMRI: A multireader study , 2017, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[7]  C. Gaudiano,et al.  “In‐bore” MRI‐guided Prostate Biopsy Using an Endorectal Nonmagnetic Device: A Prospective Study of 70 Consecutive Patients , 2017, Clinical genitourinary cancer.

[8]  H. Schlemmer,et al.  Impact of Clinical Parameters on the Diagnostic Accuracy of Endorectal Coil MRI for the Detection of Prostate Cancer , 2011, Urologia Internationalis.

[9]  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.

[10]  J. Kim,et al.  Is endorectal coil necessary for the staging of clinically localized prostate cancer? Comparison of non-endorectal versus endorectal MR imaging , 2010, World Journal of Urology.

[11]  Heinz-Peter Schlemmer,et al.  Topographical Sensitivity and Specificity of Endorectal Coil Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Prostate Cancer Detection , 2010, Urologia Internationalis.

[12]  B. K. Park,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 , 2007, Journal of computer assisted tomography.

[13]  Baris Turkbey,et al.  Prostate Cancer: Interobserver Agreement and Accuracy with the Revised Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System at Multiparametric MR Imaging. , 2015, Radiology.

[14]  V. Fonteyne,et al.  Prostate magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging at 1.5tesla with endorectal coil versus 3.0tesla without endorectal coil: comparison of spectral quality. , 2015, Clinical imaging.

[15]  Mahyar Ghafoori,et al.  MRI in Prostate Cancer , 2013, Iranian Red Crescent medical journal.

[16]  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.

[17]  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.

[18]  P. Carroll,et al.  Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer: present and future , 2008, Current opinion in urology.

[19]  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.

[20]  G. Krestin,et al.  [Preoperative T-staging of prostatic carcinoma: endorectal magnetic resonance tomography compared with other imaging and clinical methods]. , 1996, RöFo. Fortschritte auf dem Gebiet der Röntgenstrahlen und der bildgebenden Verfahren (Print).

[21]  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.

[22]  David Y. Lu,et al.  Characteristics of Detected and Missed Prostate Cancer Foci on 3-T Multiparametric MRI Using an Endorectal Coil Correlated With Whole-Mount Thin-Section Histopathology. , 2015, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[23]  Aaron Fenster,et al.  Clinical application of a 3D ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy system. , 2011, Urologic oncology.

[24]  Jun Nakashima,et al.  Endorectal MRI for prediction of tumor site, tumor size, and local extension of prostate cancer. , 2004, Urology.

[25]  Werner Jaschke,et al.  Comparison of real-time elastography and multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer detection: a whole-mount step-section analysis. , 2014, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

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

[27]  H. Schlemmer,et al.  [Diffusion-weighted MRI of the prostate]. , 2011, Der Radiologe.

[28]  Thomas Kahn,et al.  Impact of the use of an endorectal coil for 3 T prostate MRI on image quality and cancer detection rate , 2017, Scientific Reports.

[29]  Chinyere N. Onyebuchi,et al.  The role of preoperative endorectal magnetic resonance imaging in the decision regarding whether to preserve or resect neurovascular bundles during radical retropubic prostatectomy , 2004, Cancer.