Radiology
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Published online before print May 10, 2007, 10.1148/radiol.2441060425
This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
2441060425v1
244/1/184    most recent
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Heijmink, S. W. T. P. J.
Right arrow Articles by Barentsz, J. O.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Heijmink, S. W. T. P. J.
Right arrow Articles by Barentsz, J. O.
(Radiology 2007;244:184-195.)
© RSNA, 2007

Genitourinary Imaging

Prostate Cancer: Body-Array versus Endorectal Coil MR Imaging at 3 T—Comparison of Image Quality, Localization, and Staging Performance1

Stijn W. T. P. J. Heijmink, MD, Jurgen J. Fütterer, MD, PhD, Thomas Hambrock, MBChB, Satoru Takahashi, MD, PhD, Tom W. J. Scheenen, PhD, Henkjan J. Huisman, MS, PhD, Christina A. Hulsbergen–Van de Kaa, MD, PhD, Ben C. Knipscheer, MD, Lambertus A. L. M. Kiemeney, PhD, J. Alfred Witjes, MD, PhD, and Jelle O. Barentsz, MD, PhD

1 From the Departments of Radiology (S.W.T.P.J.H., J.J.F., T.H., S.T., T.W.J.S., H.J.H., J.O.B.), Pathology (C.A.H.), Urology (B.C.K., L.A.L.M.K., J.A.W.), and Epidemiology and Biostatistics (L.A.L.M.K.), Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Geert Grooteplein zuid 10, NL 6500 HB, Nijmegen, the Netherlands. From the 2005 RSNA Annual Meeting. Received March 7, 2006; revision requested May 5; revision received June 6; accepted June 19; final version accepted November 9. Supported by Dutch Cancer Society grant KUN 2003-2925. Address correspondence to S.W.T.P.J.H. (e-mail: S.Heijmink{at}rad.umcn.nl).

Purpose: To prospectively compare image quality and accuracy of prostate cancer localization and staging with body-array coil (BAC) versus endorectal coil (ERC) T2-weighted magnetic resonance (MR) imaging at 3 T, with histopathologic findings as the reference standard.

Materials and Methods: After institutional review board approval and written informed consent, 46 men underwent 3-T T2-weighted MR imaging with a BAC (voxel size, 0.43 x 0.43 x 4.00 mm) and an ERC (voxel size, 0.26 x 0.26 x 2.50 mm) before radical prostatectomy. Four radiologists independently evaluated data sets obtained with the BAC and ERC separately. Ten image quality characteristics related to prostate cancer localization and staging were assigned scores. Prostate cancer presence was recorded with a five-point probability scale in each of 14 segments that included the whole prostate. Disease stage was classified as organ-confined or locally advanced with a five-point probability scale. Whole-mount-section histopathologic examination was the reference standard. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUCs) and diagnostic performance parameters were determined. A difference with a P value of less than .05 was considered significant.

Results: Forty-six patients (mean age, 61 years) were included for analysis. Significantly more motion artifacts were present with ERC imaging (P < .001). All other image quality characteristics improved significantly (P < .001) with ERC imaging. With ERC imaging, the AUC for localization of prostate cancer was significantly increased from 0.62 to 0.68 (P < .001). ERC imaging significantly increased the AUCs for staging, and sensitivity for detection of locally advanced disease by experienced readers was increased from 7% (one of 15) to a range of 73% (11 of 15) to 80% (12 of 15) (P < .05), whereas a high specificity of 97% (30 of 31) to 100% (31 of 31) was maintained. Extracapsular extension as small as 0.5 mm at histopathologic examination could be accurately detected only with ERC imaging.

Conclusion: Image quality and localization improved significantly with ERC imaging compared with BAC imaging. For experienced radiologists, the staging performance was significantly better with ERC imaging.

© RSNA, 2007