T2- and diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging at 3 T for the detection of prostate cancer with and without endorectal coil: An intraindividual comparison of image quality and diagnostic performance

37Citations
Citations of this article
43Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Objectives To intraindividually compare image quality and diagnostic performance of multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) at 3 T for the detection of prostate cancer (PCa) using a pelvic phased-array coil (PAC) and a combined endorectal and pelvic phased-array coil (ERC-PAC). Methods Forty-five patients were prospectively included and received mpMRI of the prostate using a PAC and an ERC-PAC during one imaging session. Two radiologists evaluated image quality and the most suspicious lesion according to the PI-RADS scoring system. Results of MRI-TRUS-fusion biopsy of the prostate served as reference standard. Patient comfort and acceptance were assessed using a standardized questionnaire. Results Overall image quality for T2WI was rated significantly better with an ERC-PAC compared to a PAC (p = 0.0038). The weighted kappa for PI-RADS scores for T2WI and DWI with a PAC and an ERC-PAC was 0.70 and 0.73, respectively. For a PI-RADS sum score including T2WI and DWI the area under the curve with a PAC and an ERC-PAC were 0.95-0.99 and 0.93-0.97, respectively (p = 0.1395). Conclusion For T2WI and DWI performed at 3 T index PCa lesion identification and evaluation did not differ significantly with both coil setups. Patients preferred MRI without an ERC. Therefore, the use of an ERC may be omitted in a prostate cancer detection setting.

Author supplied keywords

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Baur, A. D. J., Daqqaq, T., Wagner, M., Maxeiner, A., Huppertz, A., Renz, D., … Durmus, T. (2016). T2- and diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging at 3 T for the detection of prostate cancer with and without endorectal coil: An intraindividual comparison of image quality and diagnostic performance. European Journal of Radiology, 85(6), 1075–1084. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2016.03.014

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free