4.7 Article

Comparison of Endorectal Coil and Nonendorectal Coil T2W and Diffusion-Weighted MRI at 3 Tesla for Localizing Prostate Cancer: Correlation With Whole-Mount Histopathology

期刊

JOURNAL OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING
卷 39, 期 6, 页码 1443-1448

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jmri.24317

关键词

prostate cancer; surface coil; endorectal coil; MRI; 3 Tesla

资金

  1. Intramural NIH HHS [ZIA BC010655-08, Z01 BC010655-03] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PurposeTo compare utility of T2-weighted (T2W) MRI and diffusion-weighted MRI (DWI-MRI) obtained with and without an endorectal coil at 3 Tesla (T) for localizing prostate cancer. Materials and MethodsThis Institutional Review Board-approved study included 20 patients (median prostate-specific antigen, 8.4 ng/mL). Patients underwent consecutive prostate MRIs at 3T, first with a surface coil alone, then with combination of surface, endorectal coils (dual coil) followed by robotic assisted radical prostatectomy. Lesions were mapped at time of acquisition on dual-coil T2W, DWI-MRI. To avoid bias, 6 months later nonendorectal coil T2W, DWI-MRI were mapped. Both MRI evaluations were performed by two readers blinded to pathology with differences resolved by consensus. A lesion-based correlation with whole-mount histopathology was performed. ResultsAt histopathology 51 cancer foci were present ranging in size from 2 to 60 mm. The sensitivity of the endorectal dual-coil, nonendorectal coil MRIs were 0.76, 0.45, respectively. PPVs for endorectal dual-coil, nonendorectal coil MRI were 0.80, 0.64, respectively. Mean size of detected lesions with nonendorectal coil MRI were larger than those detected by dual-coil MRI (22 mm versus 17.4 mm). ConclusionDual-coil prostate MRI detected more cancer foci than nonendorectal coil MRI. While nonendorectal coil MRI is an attractive alternative, physicians performing prostate MRI should be aware of its limitations. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2014;39:1443-1448. (c) 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据