Is endorectal coil necessary for the staging of clinically localized prostate cancer? Comparison of non-endorectal versus endorectal MR imaging

Seung Hwan Lee, Kyung Kgi Park, Kyung Hwa Choi, Beom Jin Lim, Joo Hee Kim, Seung Wook Lee, Byungha Chung

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

51 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: The goal of this study was to compare the diagnostic use and safety of endorectal coil (ERC) MRI with those of phased-array coil MRI. Methods: We retrospectively included 91 consecutive patients who had undergone 1.5-T MRI with ERC or with phased-array coil MRI before radical prostatectomy at our institution. We compared 47 patients' phased-array coil MRI and 44 patients' ERC-MRI with histologic findings. We also evaluated adverse events following the MRI procedure. Results: The serum PSA levels ranged from 2.85 to 33.51 ng/mL (10.72 ± 1.9), and the median Gleason score was 7 (range 4-9). The mean interval between diagnostic prostate biopsy and staging MRI was 18.4 days (range 2-37). In assessing organ-confined disease, extracapsular extension and seminal vesicle invasion by MRI, there were no significant differences between ERC-MR group and phased-array coil MR group. The AUC values were 0.671 (95% CI 0.530-0.813) for ERC-MR and 0.657 (95% CI 0.503-0.811) for phased-array coil MR. No significant differences were found between the two groups (p = 0.24). Five patients (11.4%) developed rectal complications after ERC-MRI. However, no complications were found in phased-array coil MRI group. Conclusions: In terms of diagnostic accuracy and comfort of patients, the use of ERC-MRI did not significantly improve the staging of prostate cancer and presented several complications. Therefore, phased-array coil MRI is a better alternative considering comorbidity.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)667-672
Number of pages6
JournalWorld Journal of Urology
Volume28
Issue number6
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2010 Dec 1

Fingerprint

Prostatic Neoplasms
Neoplasm Grading
Seminal Vesicles
Prostatectomy
Area Under Curve
Comorbidity
Prostate
Biopsy
Safety
Serum

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Urology

Cite this

Lee, Seung Hwan ; Park, Kyung Kgi ; Choi, Kyung Hwa ; Lim, Beom Jin ; Kim, Joo Hee ; Lee, Seung Wook ; Chung, Byungha. / Is endorectal coil necessary for the staging of clinically localized prostate cancer? Comparison of non-endorectal versus endorectal MR imaging. In: World Journal of Urology. 2010 ; Vol. 28, No. 6. pp. 667-672.
@article{968f5bf57e7b4942a6dc3fafe0b00aad,
title = "Is endorectal coil necessary for the staging of clinically localized prostate cancer? Comparison of non-endorectal versus endorectal MR imaging",
abstract = "Purpose: The goal of this study was to compare the diagnostic use and safety of endorectal coil (ERC) MRI with those of phased-array coil MRI. Methods: We retrospectively included 91 consecutive patients who had undergone 1.5-T MRI with ERC or with phased-array coil MRI before radical prostatectomy at our institution. We compared 47 patients' phased-array coil MRI and 44 patients' ERC-MRI with histologic findings. We also evaluated adverse events following the MRI procedure. Results: The serum PSA levels ranged from 2.85 to 33.51 ng/mL (10.72 ± 1.9), and the median Gleason score was 7 (range 4-9). The mean interval between diagnostic prostate biopsy and staging MRI was 18.4 days (range 2-37). In assessing organ-confined disease, extracapsular extension and seminal vesicle invasion by MRI, there were no significant differences between ERC-MR group and phased-array coil MR group. The AUC values were 0.671 (95{\%} CI 0.530-0.813) for ERC-MR and 0.657 (95{\%} CI 0.503-0.811) for phased-array coil MR. No significant differences were found between the two groups (p = 0.24). Five patients (11.4{\%}) developed rectal complications after ERC-MRI. However, no complications were found in phased-array coil MRI group. Conclusions: In terms of diagnostic accuracy and comfort of patients, the use of ERC-MRI did not significantly improve the staging of prostate cancer and presented several complications. Therefore, phased-array coil MRI is a better alternative considering comorbidity.",
author = "Lee, {Seung Hwan} and Park, {Kyung Kgi} and Choi, {Kyung Hwa} and Lim, {Beom Jin} and Kim, {Joo Hee} and Lee, {Seung Wook} and Byungha Chung",
year = "2010",
month = "12",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s00345-010-0579-6",
language = "English",
volume = "28",
pages = "667--672",
journal = "World Journal of Urology",
issn = "0724-4983",
publisher = "Springer Verlag",
number = "6",

}

Is endorectal coil necessary for the staging of clinically localized prostate cancer? Comparison of non-endorectal versus endorectal MR imaging. / Lee, Seung Hwan; Park, Kyung Kgi; Choi, Kyung Hwa; Lim, Beom Jin; Kim, Joo Hee; Lee, Seung Wook; Chung, Byungha.

In: World Journal of Urology, Vol. 28, No. 6, 01.12.2010, p. 667-672.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Is endorectal coil necessary for the staging of clinically localized prostate cancer? Comparison of non-endorectal versus endorectal MR imaging

AU - Lee, Seung Hwan

AU - Park, Kyung Kgi

AU - Choi, Kyung Hwa

AU - Lim, Beom Jin

AU - Kim, Joo Hee

AU - Lee, Seung Wook

AU - Chung, Byungha

PY - 2010/12/1

Y1 - 2010/12/1

N2 - Purpose: The goal of this study was to compare the diagnostic use and safety of endorectal coil (ERC) MRI with those of phased-array coil MRI. Methods: We retrospectively included 91 consecutive patients who had undergone 1.5-T MRI with ERC or with phased-array coil MRI before radical prostatectomy at our institution. We compared 47 patients' phased-array coil MRI and 44 patients' ERC-MRI with histologic findings. We also evaluated adverse events following the MRI procedure. Results: The serum PSA levels ranged from 2.85 to 33.51 ng/mL (10.72 ± 1.9), and the median Gleason score was 7 (range 4-9). The mean interval between diagnostic prostate biopsy and staging MRI was 18.4 days (range 2-37). In assessing organ-confined disease, extracapsular extension and seminal vesicle invasion by MRI, there were no significant differences between ERC-MR group and phased-array coil MR group. The AUC values were 0.671 (95% CI 0.530-0.813) for ERC-MR and 0.657 (95% CI 0.503-0.811) for phased-array coil MR. No significant differences were found between the two groups (p = 0.24). Five patients (11.4%) developed rectal complications after ERC-MRI. However, no complications were found in phased-array coil MRI group. Conclusions: In terms of diagnostic accuracy and comfort of patients, the use of ERC-MRI did not significantly improve the staging of prostate cancer and presented several complications. Therefore, phased-array coil MRI is a better alternative considering comorbidity.

AB - Purpose: The goal of this study was to compare the diagnostic use and safety of endorectal coil (ERC) MRI with those of phased-array coil MRI. Methods: We retrospectively included 91 consecutive patients who had undergone 1.5-T MRI with ERC or with phased-array coil MRI before radical prostatectomy at our institution. We compared 47 patients' phased-array coil MRI and 44 patients' ERC-MRI with histologic findings. We also evaluated adverse events following the MRI procedure. Results: The serum PSA levels ranged from 2.85 to 33.51 ng/mL (10.72 ± 1.9), and the median Gleason score was 7 (range 4-9). The mean interval between diagnostic prostate biopsy and staging MRI was 18.4 days (range 2-37). In assessing organ-confined disease, extracapsular extension and seminal vesicle invasion by MRI, there were no significant differences between ERC-MR group and phased-array coil MR group. The AUC values were 0.671 (95% CI 0.530-0.813) for ERC-MR and 0.657 (95% CI 0.503-0.811) for phased-array coil MR. No significant differences were found between the two groups (p = 0.24). Five patients (11.4%) developed rectal complications after ERC-MRI. However, no complications were found in phased-array coil MRI group. Conclusions: In terms of diagnostic accuracy and comfort of patients, the use of ERC-MRI did not significantly improve the staging of prostate cancer and presented several complications. Therefore, phased-array coil MRI is a better alternative considering comorbidity.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=78049483238&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=78049483238&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s00345-010-0579-6

DO - 10.1007/s00345-010-0579-6

M3 - Article

C2 - 20623288

AN - SCOPUS:78049483238

VL - 28

SP - 667

EP - 672

JO - World Journal of Urology

JF - World Journal of Urology

SN - 0724-4983

IS - 6

ER -