Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2015 Apr;22(4):467-74.
doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2014.11.007. Epub 2015 Jan 8.

Performance comparison of 1.5-T endorectal coil MRI with 3.0-T nonendorectal coil MRI in patients with prostate cancer

Zarine K Shah  1 , Saba N Elias  1 , Ronney Abaza  2 , Debra L Zynger  3 , Lawrence A DeRenne  3 , Michael V Knopp  1 , Beibei Guo  4 , Ryan Schurr  5 , Steven B Heymsfield  6 , Guang Jia  7
Affiliations
Comparative Study

Performance comparison of 1.5-T endorectal coil MRI with 3.0-T nonendorectal coil MRI in patients with prostate cancer

Zarine K Shah et al. Acad Radiol. 2015 Apr.

Abstract

Rationale and objectives: To compare prostate morphology, image quality, and diagnostic performance of 1.5-T endorectal coil magnetic resonance (MR) imaging (MRI) and 3.0-T nonendorectal coil MRI in patients with prostate cancer.

Materials and methods: MR images obtained of 83 patients with prostate cancer using 1.5-T MRI systems with an endorectal coil were compared to images collected from 83 patients with a 3.0-T MRI system. Prostate diameters were measured, and image quality was evaluated by one American Board of Radiology (ABR)-certified radiologist (reader 1) and one ABR-certified diagnostic medical physicist (reader 2). The likelihood of the presence of peripheral zone cancer in each sextant and local extent was rated and compared to histopathologic findings.

Results: Prostate anterior-posterior diameter measured by both readers was significantly shorter with 1.5-T endorectal MRI than with 3.0-T MRI. The overall image quality score difference was significant only for reader 1. Both readers found that the two MRI systems provided a similar diagnostic accuracy in cancer localization, extraprostatic extension, and seminal vesicle involvement.

Conclusions: Nonendorectal coil 3.0-T MRI provides prostate images that are natural in shape and that have comparable image quality to those obtained at 1.5 T with an endorectal coil, but not superior diagnostic performance. These findings suggest an opportunity exists for improving technical aspects of the 3.0-T prostate MRI.

Keywords: Prostate cancer; endorectal coil; image quality; magnetic resonance imaging; tumor localization; tumor staging.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Research design flow chart. In order to evaluate whether 3.0 T MRI without an endorectal coil is clinically usable, the ACRIN imaging archive with endorectal 1.5 T MRI was compared to our in-house 3.0 T MR imaging study without an endorectal coil.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Prostate diameter measurement results by 2 readers. LR diameter was generally the longest, and AP shortest, among the three diameters. AP diameter at 1.5 T endorectal MRI was significantly shorter than that at 3.0 T due to the rectum dilation for an endorectal coil insertion and fixation as reviewed by both readers.
Figure 3
Figure 3
100% stacked column plot shows the percentage of subjects with different scores, as evaluated by two readers. Highest score was given to the majority of subjects at either 1.5 T endorectal or 3.0 T MRI.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Image artifacts on 1.5 T endorectal and 3.0 T MRI. The typical image artifacts from 1.5 T endorectal MRI included ghosting (a) and coil-related SNR decrease (b). The typical artifacts from 3.0 T MRI are signal graininess (c) and rectum motion artifact (d).
Figure 5
Figure 5
Receiver operating characteristic curves of 1.5 T endorectal MRI diagnostic performances versus 3.0 T MRI performances for both readers in tumor localization (a), extraprostatic extension (b), and seminal vesicle involvement (c).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Siegel R, Ma J, Zou Z, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2014. CA Cancer J Clin. 2014;64(1):9–29. - PubMed
    1. Mazaheri Y, Shukla-Dave A, Muellner A, Hricak H. MRI of the prostate: clinical relevance and emerging applications. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2011;33(2):258–74. - PubMed
    1. Hricak H, Choyke PL, Eberhardt SC, Leibel SA, Scardino PT. Imaging prostate cancer: a multidisciplinary perspective. Radiology. 2007;243(1):28–53. - PubMed
    1. Hricak H, White S, Vigneron D, et al. Carcinoma of the prostate gland: MR imaging with pelvic phased-array coils versus integrated endorectal--pelvic phased-array coils. Radiology. 1994;193(3):703–9. - PubMed
    1. Rajesh A, Coakley FV. MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging of prostate cancer. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2004;12(3):557–79. - PubMed

Publication types