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.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
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 34:839–845
Kurhanewicz J, Vigneron D, Carroll P, Coakley F (2008) Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer: present and future. Curr Opin Urol 18:71–77
Donati OF, Mazaheri Y, Afaq A, et al. (2013) Prostate cancer aggressiveness: assessment with whole-lesion histogram analysis of the apparent diffusion coefficient. Radiology 271:143–152
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 20:3705–3711
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 40:3214–3221
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 31:947–952
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 38:1447–1463
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 49:165–172
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 389:815–822
Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, et al. (2016) PI-RADS Prostate imaging—reporting and data system: 2015, Version 2. Eur Urol 69:16–40
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 41:2218–2226
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 39:1443–1448
Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, et al. (2012) ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 22:746–757
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 22:467–474
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 11:857–862
Heverhagen JT (2007) Noise measurement and estimation in MR imaging experiments. Radiology 245:638–639
Kaufman L, Kramer DM, Crooks LE, Ortendahl DA (1989) Measuring signal-to-noise ratios in MR imaging. Radiology 173:265–267
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 39:419–426
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 244:184–195
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 31:534–538
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 30:355
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
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 17:1055–1065
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 193:703–709
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
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
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.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
O’Donohoe, R.L., Dunne, R.M., Kimbrell, V. et al. Prostate MRI using an external phased array wearable pelvic coil at 3T: comparison with an endorectal coil. Abdom Radiol 44, 1062–1069 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-018-1804-9
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-018-1804-9