Prostate MRI using a rigid two-channel phased-array endorectal coil: comparison with phased array coil acquisition at 3 T.
Endorectal coil
Image quality
Magnetic resonance imaging
Prostate cancer
Signal to noise ratio (SNR)
Journal
Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society
ISSN: 1470-7330
Titre abrégé: Cancer Imaging
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101172931
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
16 Mar 2022
16 Mar 2022
Historique:
received:
06
05
2021
accepted:
27
02
2022
entrez:
17
3
2022
pubmed:
18
3
2022
medline:
19
3
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
To compare image quality, lesion detection and patient comfort of 3T prostate MRI using a combined rigid two-channel phased-array endorectal coil and an external phased-array coil (ERC-PAC) compared to external PAC acquisition in the same patients. Thirty three men (mean age 65.3y) with suspected (n = 15) or biopsy-proven prostate cancer (PCa, n = 18) were prospectively enrolled in this exploratory study. 3T prostate MRI including T2-weighted imaging (T2WI) and diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) was performed using an ERC-PAC versus PAC alone, in random order. Image quality, lesion detection and characterization (biparametric PI-RADSv2.1) were evaluated by 2 independent observers. Estimated signal-to-noise ratio (eSNR) was measured in identified lesions and the peripheral zone (PZ). Patient comfort was assessed using a questionnaire. Data were compared between sequences and acquisitions. Inter/intra-observer agreement for PI-RADS scores was evaluated. Twenty four prostate lesions (22 PCa) were identified in 20/33 men. Superior image quality was found for ERC-PAC compared to PAC for T2WI for one observer (Obs.1, p < 0.03) and high b-value DWI for both observers (p < 0.05). The sensitivity of PI-RADS for lesion detection for ERC-PAC and PAC acquisitions was 79.2 and 75% for Obs.1, and 79.1 and 66.7%, for Obs.2, without significant difference for each observer (McNemar p-values ≥0.08). Inter-/intra-observer agreement for PI-RADS scores was moderate-to-substantial (kappa = 0.52-0.84). Higher eSNR was observed for lesions and PZ for T2WI and PZ for DWI using ERC-PAC (p < 0.013). Most patients (21/33) reported discomfort at ERC insertion. Despite improved image quality and eSNR using the rigid ERC-PAC combination, no significant improvement in lesion detection was observed, therefore not supporting the routine use of ERC for prostate MRI.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
To compare image quality, lesion detection and patient comfort of 3T prostate MRI using a combined rigid two-channel phased-array endorectal coil and an external phased-array coil (ERC-PAC) compared to external PAC acquisition in the same patients.
METHODS
METHODS
Thirty three men (mean age 65.3y) with suspected (n = 15) or biopsy-proven prostate cancer (PCa, n = 18) were prospectively enrolled in this exploratory study. 3T prostate MRI including T2-weighted imaging (T2WI) and diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) was performed using an ERC-PAC versus PAC alone, in random order. Image quality, lesion detection and characterization (biparametric PI-RADSv2.1) were evaluated by 2 independent observers. Estimated signal-to-noise ratio (eSNR) was measured in identified lesions and the peripheral zone (PZ). Patient comfort was assessed using a questionnaire. Data were compared between sequences and acquisitions. Inter/intra-observer agreement for PI-RADS scores was evaluated.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Twenty four prostate lesions (22 PCa) were identified in 20/33 men. Superior image quality was found for ERC-PAC compared to PAC for T2WI for one observer (Obs.1, p < 0.03) and high b-value DWI for both observers (p < 0.05). The sensitivity of PI-RADS for lesion detection for ERC-PAC and PAC acquisitions was 79.2 and 75% for Obs.1, and 79.1 and 66.7%, for Obs.2, without significant difference for each observer (McNemar p-values ≥0.08). Inter-/intra-observer agreement for PI-RADS scores was moderate-to-substantial (kappa = 0.52-0.84). Higher eSNR was observed for lesions and PZ for T2WI and PZ for DWI using ERC-PAC (p < 0.013). Most patients (21/33) reported discomfort at ERC insertion.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Despite improved image quality and eSNR using the rigid ERC-PAC combination, no significant improvement in lesion detection was observed, therefore not supporting the routine use of ERC for prostate MRI.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35296357
doi: 10.1186/s40644-022-00453-7
pii: 10.1186/s40644-022-00453-7
pmc: PMC8925156
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
15Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Abdom Radiol (NY). 2016 Nov;41(11):2218-2226
pubmed: 27369051
Radiology. 2014 Feb;270(2):556-65
pubmed: 24471393
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2014 Jun;39(6):1443-8
pubmed: 24243824
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2014 Feb;39(2):419-26
pubmed: 23682041
Eur Urol. 2020 Apr;77(4):457-468
pubmed: 31582290
Radiology. 2007 Jul;244(1):184-95
pubmed: 17495178
Curr Urol Rep. 2016 Apr;17(4):32
pubmed: 26902626
J Am Coll Radiol. 2014 Feb;11(2):156-60
pubmed: 24389134
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2014 Feb;202(2):343-51
pubmed: 24450675
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2016 Jun;43(6):1279-87
pubmed: 26584144
Abdom Radiol (NY). 2020 Dec;45(12):4260-4270
pubmed: 32696213
Clin Cancer Res. 2014 Jul 15;20(14):3705-11
pubmed: 24850842
Eur J Radiol. 2013 Oct;82(10):e515-20
pubmed: 23810189
Urol Oncol. 2016 Jun;34(6):255.e7-255.e13
pubmed: 26971190
Sci Rep. 2017 Feb 01;7:40640
pubmed: 28145525
Brachytherapy. 2018 Mar - Apr;17(2):298-305
pubmed: 29169971
Yonsei Med J. 2012 May;53(3):550-6
pubmed: 22476999
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2017 Dec;46(6):1767-1775
pubmed: 28301097
Magn Reson Med. 2015 Jan;73(1):417-26
pubmed: 24478117
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2018 Aug;211(2):369-378
pubmed: 29894216
Eur Urol. 2019 Sep;76(3):340-351
pubmed: 30898406
Radiology. 2007 Dec;245(3):638-9
pubmed: 18024445
Eur J Radiol. 2016 Jun;85(6):1075-84
pubmed: 27161055
Eur Urol. 2016 Jan;69(1):16-40
pubmed: 26427566
J Magn Reson Imaging. 1996 Sep-Oct;6(5):801-4
pubmed: 8890019