Impact of an endorectal coil for 1H-magnetic resonance spectroscopy of the prostate at 3.0 T in comparison to 1.5 T: Do we need an endorectal coil?

被引:2
|
作者
Hoffner, Maximilian K. M. [1 ]
Huebner, Frank [1 ]
Scholtz, Jan Erik [1 ]
Zangos, Stephan [1 ]
Schulz, Boris [1 ]
Luboldt, Wolfgang [1 ]
Vogl, Thomas J. [1 ]
Bodelle, Boris [1 ]
机构
[1] Goethe Univ Frankfurt, Dept Diagnost & Intervent Radiol, Theodor Stern Kai 7,Haus 23c, D-60590 Frankfurt, Hesse, Germany
关键词
Prostate; Proton MR Spectroscopic Imaging; Endorectal coil; Signal-to-noise ratio; Diagnostic suitability; 3.0T MRSI; PROTON MR SPECTROSCOPY; INITIAL-EXPERIENCE; IMAGE QUALITY; CANCER; LOCALIZATION; GUIDELINES; BIOPSIES; ARRAY; RISK;
D O I
10.1016/j.ejrad.2016.05.019
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
Objectives: To evaluate the influence of endorectal coil (ERC) regarding spectral quality and diagnostic suitability and diagnostic performance in 3.0T 1H-magnetic resonance spectroscopy imaging (MRSI) compared to 1.5 T MRSI. Materials and methods: The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board. MRSI of the prostate was performed on 19 patients at 1.5T with ERC (protocol 1), at 3.0T with a disabled ERC (protocol 2) and at 3.0T with ERC (protocol 3). Age, weight, body size, body-mass-index, prostate volume, time between measurements, diagnostic suitability of spectra, histopathological results after biopsy of cancer suspect lesions (CSL), sensitivity and specificity were evaluated. Signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) was calculated and compared using semiparametrical multiple Conover-comparisons. Correlations between SNR and prostate volume and BMI were indicated using Pearson correlation coefficient. Distribution of SNR was evaluated for prostate quadrants. Results: Diagnostic suitable spectra were achieved in 76 % (protocol 1, 100% in CSL), 32 % (protocol 2, 59% in CSL) and 50 % (protocol 3, 80% in CSL) of the voxels. SNR was significantly higher in protocol 3 compared to protocol 2 and 1 (93,729 vs. 27,836 vs. 32,897, p < 0.0001) with significant difference between protocol 2 and 1 (p < 0.023). Highest SNR was achieved in the dorsal prostate (protocols 1 and 3; p < 0.0001). Sensitivity at 3.0 T was higher with use of ERC. Specificity was highest at 1.5 T with ERC. Conclusion: The ERC improves the diagnostic suitability and the SNR in MRSI at 3.0 T. Less voxels at 3.0 T with disabled ERC are suitable for diagnosis compared to 1.5 T with ERC. MRSI at 3.0T with ERC shows the highest SNR. SNR in dorsal quadrants of the prostate was higher using ERC. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:1432 / 1438
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Prostate magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging at 1.5 tesla with endorectal coil versus 3.0 tesla without endorectal coil: comparison of spectral quality
    De Visschere, Pieter
    Nezzo, Marco
    Pattyn, Eva
    Fonteyne, Valerie
    Van Praet, Charles
    Villeirs, Geert
    CLINICAL IMAGING, 2015, 39 (04) : 636 - 641
  • [2] Performance Comparison of 1.5-T Endorectal Coil MRI with 3.0-T Nonendorectal Coil MRI in Patients with Prostate Cancer
    Shah, Zarine K.
    Elias, Saba N.
    Abaza, Ronney
    Zynger, Debra L.
    DeRenne, Lawrence A.
    Knopp, Michael V.
    Guo, Beibei
    Schurr, Ryan
    Heymsfield, Steven B.
    Jia, Guang
    ACADEMIC RADIOLOGY, 2015, 22 (04) : 467 - 474
  • [3] A solid reusable endorectal receiver coil for magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate: Design, use, and comparison with an inflatable endorectal coil
    deSouza, NM
    Gilderdale, DJ
    Puni, R
    Coutts, GA
    Young, IR
    JMRI-JOURNAL OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING, 1996, 6 (05): : 801 - 804
  • [4] Endorectal coil magnetic resonance imaging and clinicopathologic findings in T1c adenocarcinoma of the prostate
    Bernstein, MR
    Cangiano, T
    D'Amico, A
    Chittams, J
    Hardy, C
    Whittington, RD
    Tomaszewski, JE
    Schnall, MD
    Wein, AJ
    Malkowicz, SB
    UROLOGIC ONCOLOGY, 2000, 5 (03): : 104 - 107
  • [5] PROSTATE CANCER: COMPARING THE IMAGE QUALITY OF ENDORECTAL MRI AT 1.5T WITH 3T MRI WITHOUT THE ENDORECTAL COIL
    Jia, Guang
    Shah, Zarine
    Wei, Lai
    Knopp, Michael
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2013, 189 (04): : E895 - E896
  • [6] Uniform prostate imaging and spectroscopy at 7 T: comparison between a microstrip array and an endorectal coil
    van den Bergen, Bob
    Klomp, Dennis W. J.
    Raaijmakers, Alexander J. E.
    de Castro, Catalina Arteaga
    Boer, Vincent O.
    Kroeze, Hugo
    Luijten, Peter R.
    Lagendijk, Jan J. W.
    van den Berg, Cornelis A. T.
    NMR IN BIOMEDICINE, 2011, 24 (04) : 358 - 365
  • [7] A comparison of 3T MR imaging of the prostate with and without an endorectal coil
    Ischia, J.
    Co, S.
    Harris, A.
    Kozlowski, P.
    Jones, E.
    Chang, S.
    Goldenberg, L.
    BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2014, 113 : 119 - 120
  • [8] A Novel Three-Channel Endorectal Coil for Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging at 3T
    Mo, Zhiguang
    Zhang, Xiaoping
    Liang, Huageng
    Chen, Qiaoyan
    Tie, Changjun
    Xiao, Wen
    Cao, Qi
    Liu, Chenchen
    Zou, Chao
    Wan, Liwen
    Zhang, Xiaoliang
    Li, Ye
    IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING, 2023, 70 (12) : 3381 - 3388
  • [9] Prostate 1H-MRS spectroscopy: comparison of 1.5T endorectal three dimensional MRS vs. 3T MRS using a surface coil
    Senczenko, Waldemar
    Bobek-Billewicz, Barbara
    Rembak-Szynkiewicz, Justyna
    POLISH JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2008, 73 (01) : 7 - 15
  • [10] 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?
    Yakar, Derya
    Heijmink, Stijn W. T. P. J.
    Hulsbergen-van de Kaa, Christina A.
    Huisman, Henkjan
    Barentsz, Jelle O.
    Futterer, Jurgen J.
    Scheenen, Tom W. J.
    INVESTIGATIVE RADIOLOGY, 2011, 46 (05) : 301 - 306