Head-to-head comparison of prostate MRI using an endorectal coil versus a non-endorectal coil: meta-analysis of diagnostic performance in staging T3 prostate cancer

被引:7
|
作者
Tirumani, S. H. [1 ]
Suh, C. H. [2 ,3 ]
Kim, K. W. [2 ,3 ]
Shinagare, A. B. [4 ]
Ramaiya, N. H. [1 ]
Fennessy, F. M. [4 ]
机构
[1] Case Western Reserve Univ, Univ Hosp Cleveland, Dept Radiol, Med Ctr, Cleveland, OH 44106 USA
[2] Univ Ulsan, Dept Radiol, Asan Med Ctr, Coll Med, Seoul, South Korea
[3] Univ Ulsan, Res Inst Radiol, Asan Med Ctr, Coll Med, Seoul, South Korea
[4] Harvard Med Sch, Dana Farber Canc Inst, Dept Imaging, Boston, MA 02115 USA
关键词
PI-RADS V2; PELVIC PHASED-ARRAY; SYSTEM VERSION 2; IMAGE QUALITY; TEST ACCURACY; 3-T MRI; TESLA; PUBLICATION; GUIDELINES;
D O I
10.1016/j.crad.2019.09.142
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
AIM: To compare the diagnostic performance of prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with an endorectal coil (ERC) to performance without an ERC using either body-array (BAC) or pelvic phased-array coil (PAC) in staging T3 prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An electronic search of the PUBMED and EMBASE databases was performed until 10 October 2018 to identify studies performing a head-to-head comparison of prostate MRI using a 1.5 or 3 T magnet with an ERC and with a BAC/PAC for staging T3 prostate cancer. Pooled sensitivity and specificity of all studies were plotted in a hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic plot. The diagnostic performance of the two techniques in staging T3 disease was evaluated using bivariate random-effects meta-analysis. RESULTS: Eight studies comparing head-to-head prostate MRI with an ERC and with a BAC/PAC were identified of which six studies compared the diagnostic performance. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of MRI with an ERC for detecting T3a, T3b and T3a+b was 53% and 95%; 52% and 92%; 72% and 65% respectively. For MRI with a BAC/PAC these were 34%, and 95%; 45% and 94%; 70% and 66%. There was no statistical difference between an ERC and a BAC/PAC in terms of sensitivity (p=0.41) and specificity (p=0.63) for T3a. The area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve for T3a, T3b and T3a+b was 0.830, 0.901, 0.741 for an ERC and 0.790, 0.645, 0.711 for BAC, respectively. CONCLUSION: There is no significant difference in the diagnostic performance of MRI of prostate with an ERC and with a BAC/PAC in staging T3 prostate cancer. (C) 2019 The Royal College of Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:157.e9 / 157.e19
页数:11
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Is endorectal coil necessary for the staging of clinically localized prostate cancer? Comparison of non-endorectal versus endorectal MR imaging
    Lee, Seung Hwan
    Park, Kyung Kgi
    Choi, Kyung Hwa
    Lim, Beom Jin
    Kim, Joo Hee
    Lee, Seung Wook
    Chung, Byung Ha
    [J]. WORLD JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2010, 28 (06) : 667 - 672
  • [2] Is endorectal coil necessary for the staging of clinically localized prostate cancer? Comparison of non-endorectal versus endorectal MR imaging
    Seung Hwan Lee
    Kyung Kgi Park
    Kyung Hwa Choi
    Beom Jin Lim
    Joo Hee Kim
    Seung Wook Lee
    Byung Ha Chung
    [J]. World Journal of Urology, 2010, 28 : 667 - 672
  • [3] Biparametric versus Multiparametric MRI with Non-endorectal Coil at 3T in the Detection and Localization of Prostate Cancer
    Scialpi, Michele
    Prosperi, Enrico
    D'Andrea, Alfredo
    Martorana, Eugenio
    Malaspina, Corrado
    Palumbo, Barbara
    Orlandi, Agostino
    Falcone, Giuseppe
    Milizia, Michele
    Mearini, Luigi
    Aisa, Maria Cristina
    Scialpi, Pietro
    De Domincis, Carlo
    Bianchi, Giampaolo
    Sidoni, Angelo
    [J]. ANTICANCER RESEARCH, 2017, 37 (03) : 1263 - 1271
  • [4] 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
    [J]. ACADEMIC RADIOLOGY, 2015, 22 (04) : 467 - 474
  • [6] Biparametric versus Multiparametric MRI with Non-endorectal Coil at 3T in the Detection and Localization of Prostate Cancer (vol 37, pg 1263, 2017)
    Hagemann, Jan
    Jacobi, Christian
    Hahn, Moritz
    Gstoettner, Sabine
    WelZ, Christian
    Schwenk-Zieger, Sabina
    Stauber, Roland
    Baumeister, Philipp
    Becker, Sven
    [J]. ANTICANCER RESEARCH, 2017, 37 (07) : 3981 - 3981
  • [7] Prostate MRI using an external phased array wearable pelvic coil at 3T: comparison with an endorectal coil
    O'Donohoe, Rory L.
    Dunne, Ruth M.
    Kimbrell, Vera
    Tempany, Clare M.
    [J]. ABDOMINAL RADIOLOGY, 2019, 44 (03) : 1062 - 1069
  • [8] Prostate MRI using an external phased array wearable pelvic coil at 3T: comparison with an endorectal coil
    Rory L. O’Donohoe
    Ruth M. Dunne
    Vera Kimbrell
    Clare M. Tempany
    [J]. Abdominal Radiology, 2019, 44 : 1062 - 1069
  • [9] 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
    [J]. JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2013, 189 (04): : E895 - E896
  • [10] Prostate cancer:: Body-array versus endorectal coil MR imaging at 3 T -: Comparison of image quality, localization, and staging performance
    Heijmink, Stijn W. T. P. J.
    Futterer, Jurgen J.
    Hambrock, Thomas
    Takahashi, Satoru
    Scheenen, Tom W. J.
    Huisman, Henkjan J.
    Hulsbergen-Van de Kaa, Christina A.
    Knipscheer, Ben C.
    Kiemeney, Lambertus A. L. M.
    Witjes, J. Alfred
    Barentsz, Jelle O.
    [J]. RADIOLOGY, 2007, 244 (01) : 184 - 195