Advertisement

Abdominal Radiology

, Volume 44, Issue 3, pp 1062–1069 | Cite as

Prostate MRI using an external phased array wearable pelvic coil at 3T: comparison with an endorectal coil

  • Rory L. O’DonohoeEmail author
  • Ruth M. Dunne
  • Vera Kimbrell
  • Clare M. Tempany
Article

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate T2w and DWI image quality using a wearable pelvic coil (WPC) compared with an endorectal coil (ERC).

Methods

Twenty men consecutively presenting to our prostate cancer MRI clinic were prospectively consented to be scanned using a wearable pelvic coil then an endorectal coil and pelvic phased array coil at 3T. Eighteen patients were suitable for inclusion. Axial T2w images were obtained using the WPC and ERC, and DWI images were obtained using the WPC, ERC, and PPA. Analysis was performed in consensus by two readers with experience in prostate MRI. The readers scored the T2w images using six qualitative criteria and the DWI images using five criteria. Signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) was also measured.

Results

T2w artifact severity was greater for an ERC than a WPC (p = 0.003). There was no significant difference in T2w qualititatve image quality by other measures. The distinction of zonal anatomy on DWI was superior for an ERC compared with both a WPC and a PPA (p = 0.018 and p < 0.001 respectively), and there was no significant difference in DWI image quality by other measures. SNR was significantly higher for ERC imaging for both T2w and DWI.

Conclusion

WPC imaging provides comparable image quality to that of an ERC, potentially reducing the need for an ERC. WPC imaging shows reduced T2w artifact severity and inferior DWI zonal anatomy distinction compared with an ERC. Imaging with a WPC produces a lower SNR than an ERC.

Keywords

Prostate MRI Endorectal coil Wearable pelvic coil 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Funding

ScanMed, the manufacturer of the PROCURE imaging coil system, provided one wearable pelvic coil to the Department of Radiology at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and this was returned to ScanMed at the end of the study enrollment period. No further grant support was received.

Disclosures

This study has been presented as an electronic poster at the European Congress of Radiology 2018 which has been published online on the ECR’s EPOS system (https://dx.doi.org/10.1594/ecr2018/C-1171).

Conflict of interest

Dr. Tempany declares no conflicts of interest relevant to the submitted work, and outside the submitted work reports grants from NIH, personal fees from Profound Medical and personal fees from Gilead Sciences. The other authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Research involving Human Participants and/or Animals

All procedures performed involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee, with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Fusco R, Sansone M, Petrillo M, et al. (2016) Multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer detection: preliminary results on quantitative analysis of dynamic contrast enhanced imaging, diffusion-weighted imaging and spectroscopy imaging. Magn Reson Imaging 34:839–845CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kurhanewicz J, Vigneron D, Carroll P, Coakley F (2008) Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer: present and future. Curr Opin Urol 18:71–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Donati OF, Mazaheri Y, Afaq A, et al. (2013) Prostate cancer aggressiveness: assessment with whole-lesion histogram analysis of the apparent diffusion coefficient. Radiology 271:143–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Donati OF, Afaq A, Vargas HA, et al. (2014) Prostate MRI: evaluating tumor volume and apparent diffusion coefficient as surrogate biomarkers for predicting tumor gleason score. Clin Cancer Res 20:3705–3711CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wu CJ, Wang Q, Li H, et al. (2015) DWI-associated entire-tumor histogram analysis for the differentiation of low-grade prostate cancer from intermediate–high-grade prostate cancer. Abdom Imaging 40:3214–3221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Costa DN, Bloch BN, Yao DF, et al. (2013) Diagnosis of relevant prostate cancer using supplementary cores from magnetic resonance imaging-prompted areas following multiple failed biopsies. Magn Reson Imaging 31:947–952CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cornud F, Brolis L, Delongchamps NB, et al. (2013) TRUS–MRI image registration: a paradigm shift in the diagnosis of significant prostate cancer. Abdom Imaging 38:1447–1463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hoeks CMA, Somford DM, van Oort IM, et al. (2014) Value of 3-T multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance-guided biopsy for early risk restratification in active surveillance of low-risk prostate cancer: a prospective multicenter cohort study. Invest Radiol 49:165–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC, et al. (2017) Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet 389:815–822CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, et al. (2016) PI-RADS Prostate imaging—reporting and data system: 2015, Version 2. Eur Urol 69:16–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Barth BK, Cornelius A, Nanz D, Eberli D, Donati OF (2016) Comparison of image quality and patient discomfort in prostate MRI: pelvic phased array coil vs. endorectal coil. Abdom Radiol 41:2218–2226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Turkbey B, Merino MJ, Gallardo EC, et al. (2014) Comparison of endorectal coil and nonendorectal coil T2 W and diffusion-weighted MRI at 3 Tesla for localizing prostate cancer: correlation with whole-mount histopathology. J Magn Reson Imaging 39:1443–1448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, et al. (2012) ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 22:746–757CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Shah ZK, Elias SN, Baza R, et al. (2015) Performance comparison of 1.5-T endorectal coil MRI with 3.0-T nonendorectal coil MRI in patients with prostate cancer. Acad Radiol 22:467–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sosna J, Pedrosa I, Dewolf WC, et al. (2004) 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. Acad Radiol 11:857–862CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Heverhagen JT (2007) Noise measurement and estimation in MR imaging experiments. Radiology 245:638–639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kaufman L, Kramer DM, Crooks LE, Ortendahl DA (1989) Measuring signal-to-noise ratios in MR imaging. Radiology 173:265–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Powell DK, Kodsi KL, Levin G, et al. (2014) Comparison of comfort and image quality with two endorectal coils in MRI of the prostate. J Magn Reson Imaging 39:419–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Heijmink SW, Fütterer JJ, Hambrock T, et al. (2007) Prostate cancer: body-array versus endorectal coil MR imaging at 3 T–comparison of image quality, localization, and staging performance. Radiology 244:184–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Park BK, Kim B, Kim CK, Lee HM, Kwon GY (2007) 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. J Comput Assist Tomogr 31:534–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Torricelli P, Cinquantini F, Ligabue G, et al. (2006) Comparative evaluation between external phased array coil at 3T and endorectal coil at 1.5T: preliminary results. J Comput Assist Tomogr 30:355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Costa DN, Yuan Q, Xi Y, Rofsky NM, et al. (2016) Comparison of prostate cancer detection at 3-T MRI with and without an endorectal coil: a prospective, paired-patient study. Urol Oncol 34:255.e7–255.e13.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2016.02.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fütterer JJ, Engelbrecht MR, Jager GJ, et al. (2007) Prostate cancer: comparison of local staging accuracy of pelvic phased-array coil alone versus integrated endorectal-pelvic phased-array coils. Local staging accuracy of prostate cancer using endorectal coil MR imaging. Eur Radiol 17:1055–1065CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hricak H, White S, Vigneron D, et al. (1994) Carcinoma of the prostate gland: MR imaging with pelvic phased-array coils versus integrated endorectal–pelvic phased-array coils. Radiology 193:703–709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mazaheri Y, Vargas HA, Nyman G, et al. (2013) Diffusion-weighted MRI of the prostate at 3.0 T: comparison of endorectal coil (ERC) MRI and phased-array coil (PAC) MRI-The impact of SNR on ADC measurement. Eur J Radiol 82:e515–e520.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2013.04.041 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rory L. O’Donohoe
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ruth M. Dunne
    • 1
  • Vera Kimbrell
    • 1
  • Clare M. Tempany
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyBrigham and Women’s HospitalBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations