2184 PROSTATE CANCER: COMPARING THE IMAGE QUALITY OF ENDORECTAL MRI AT 1.5T WITH 3T MRI WITHOUT THE ENDORECTAL COIL

Abstract

You have accessJournal of UrologyImaging/Radiology: Uroradiology (II)1 Apr 20132184 PROSTATE CANCER: COMPARING THE IMAGE QUALITY OF ENDORECTAL MRI AT 1.5T WITH 3T MRI WITHOUT THE ENDORECTAL COIL Guang Jia, Zarine Shah, Lai Wei, and Michael Knopp Guang JiaGuang Jia Columbus, OH More articles by this author , Zarine ShahZarine Shah Columbus, OH More articles by this author , Lai WeiLai Wei Columbus, OH More articles by this author , and Michael KnoppMichael Knopp Columbus, OH More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2013.02.2093AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES The use of an endorectal coil is an essential part of the prostate 1.5T MR imaging protocol. However endorectal coil MRI is limited by availability, cost, patient discomfort, motion, and claustrophobia. MRI at 3T has a theoretical advantage of twice as much signal-to-noise as MRI at 1.5T. This study is performed to compare the prostate imaging quality at 3T with a surface coil to that of endorectal 1.5T imaging. METHODS 110 prostate cancer patients with 1.5T MRI using an endorectal coil in ACRIN 6659 study were compared to our single institutional study, which has accrued 72 prostate cancer subjects with 3T MRI using a 32-channel phased-array surface coil. Coronal and transverse T2-weighted images were interpreted by two readers. Prostate diameters including left-right (LR), anterior-posterior (AP), and cranial-caudal (CC) were measured to assess the anatomical distortion resulting from an endorectal coil. The image quality was evaluated based on five aspects: visualization of the posterior border, seminal vesicles, neurovascular bundles, image artifacts, overall image quality. For image quality, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was used for each imaging quality aspect taking into account the effect from the two readers. RESULTS AP diameters in 1.5T MRI using an endorectal coil were significantly smaller than those in 3T MRI using a surface coil (p < 0.01), indicating the compressive deformity in the prostate contour by an endorectal coil. There was no significant difference in LR and CC diameters between the two groups. There was no significant difference in the five image quality aspects (Please see Figure 1). A total of 60% cases had motion artifact affecting seminal vesicles or neurovascular bundle assessment on 1.5T MRI using an endorectal coil. Rectum motion artifact was present on 20% cases on 3T MRI using a surface coil affecting prostate cancer assessment. CONCLUSIONS 3T MRI without using an endorectal coil shows comparable image quality with 1.5T MRI using an endorectal coil. 3T MRI has the potential to evaluate the prostate gland without anatomical distortion and/or compression and thus can localize the tumor, its microcirculation and its morphological relationships within the pelvis. © 2013 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 189Issue 4SApril 2013Page: e895-e896 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2013 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Guang Jia Columbus, OH More articles by this author Zarine Shah Columbus, OH More articles by this author Lai Wei Columbus, OH More articles by this author Michael Knopp Columbus, OH More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...