AJR ARRS Membership
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
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 HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Beyersdorff, D.
Right arrow Articles by Bruhn, H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Beyersdorff, D.
Right arrow Articles by Bruhn, H.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
DOI:10.2214/AJR.04.1584
AJR 2005; 185:1214-1220
© American Roentgen Ray Society


Original Research

MRI of Prostate Cancer at 1.5 and 3.0 T: Comparison of Image Quality in Tumor Detection and Staging

Dirk Beyersdorff1, Kasra Taymoorian2, Thomas Knösel3, Dietmar Schnorr2, Roland Felix4, Bernd Hamm1 and Harald Bruhn4

1 Department of Radiology, Charité, Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Schumannstraße 20/21, Berlin 10117, Germany.
2 Department of Urology, Charité, Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin 10117, Germany.
3 Institute of Pathology, Charité, Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin 10117, Germany.
4 Department of Radiation Medicine, Charité, Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin 10117, Germany.

OBJECTIVE. This prospective study was performed to compare the image quality, tumor delineation, and depiction of staging criteria on MRI of prostate cancer at 1.5 and 3.0 T.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS. Twenty-four patients with prostate cancer underwent MRI at 1.5 T using the combined endorectal–body phased-array coil and at 3.0 T using the torso phased-array coil, among them 22 before undergoing radical prostatectomy. The prostate was imaged with T2-weighted sequences in axial and coronal orientations at both field strengths and, in addition, with an axial T1-weighted sequence at 1.5 T. Preoperative analysis of all MR images taken together was compared with the histologic findings to determine the accuracy of MRI for the local staging of prostate cancer. In a retroanalysis, the image quality, tumor delineation, and conspicuity of staging criteria were determined separately for both field strengths and compared. Statistical analysis was performed using Wilcoxon's and the McNemar tests.

RESULTS. In the preoperative analysis, MRI (at both 1.5 and 3.0 T) had an accuracy of 73% for the local staging of prostate cancer. The retroanalysis yielded significantly better results for 1.5-T MRI with the endorectal–body phased-array coil in terms of image quality (p < 0.001) and tumor delineation (p = 0.012) than for 3.0-T MRI with the torso phased-array coil. Analysis of the individual staging criteria for extracapsular disease did not reveal a superiority of either of the two field strengths in the depiction of any of the criteria.

CONCLUSION. Intraindividual comparison shows that image quality and delineation of prostate cancer at 1.5 T with the use of an endorectal coil in a pelvic phased-array is superior to the higher field strength of 3.0 T with a torso phased-array coil alone. As long as no endorectal coil is available for 3-T imaging, imaging at 1.5 T using the combined endorectal–body phased-array coil will continue to be the gold standard for prostate imaging.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
RadiologyHome page
S. W. T. P. J. Heijmink, J. J. Futterer, T. Hambrock, S. Takahashi, T. W. J. Scheenen, H. J. Huisman, C. A. Hulsbergen-Van de Kaa, B. C. Knipscheer, L. A. L. M. Kiemeney, J. A. Witjes, et al.
Prostate Cancer: Body-Array versus Endorectal Coil MR Imaging at 3 T--Comparison of Image Quality, Localization, and Staging Performance
Radiology, July 1, 2007; 244(1): 184 - 195.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2005 by the American Roentgen Ray Society.