HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Beyersdorff, D. Articles by Bruhn, H. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Beyersdorff, D. Articles by Bruhn, H. Social Bookmarking                      What's this? Hotlight (NEW!) What's Hotlight?

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

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.

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

This article has been cited by other articles:

				T. Franiel, L. Ludemann, B. Rudolph, H. Rehbein, C. Stephan, M. Taupitz, and D. Beyersdorff Prostate MR Imaging: Tissue Characterization with Pharmacokinetic Volume and Blood Flow Parameters and Correlation with Histologic Parameters Radiology, July 1, 2009; 252(1): 101 - 108. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				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]