Cargando…
Quality Comparison of 3 Tesla multiparametric MRI of the prostate using a flexible surface receiver coil versus conventional surface coil plus endorectal coil setup
PURPOSE: To subjectively and quantitatively compare the quality of 3 Tesla magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate acquired with a novel flexible surface coil (FSC) and with a conventional endorectal coil (ERC). METHODS: Six radiologists independently reviewed 200 pairs of axial, high-resolution...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer US
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7716937/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32696213 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00261-020-02641-0 |
_version_ | 1783619257001574400 |
---|---|
author | Ullrich, T. Kohli, M. D. Ohliger, M. A. Magudia, K. Arora, S. S. Barrett, T. Bittencourt, L. K. Margolis, D. J. Schimmöller, L. Turkbey, B. Westphalen, A. C. |
author_facet | Ullrich, T. Kohli, M. D. Ohliger, M. A. Magudia, K. Arora, S. S. Barrett, T. Bittencourt, L. K. Margolis, D. J. Schimmöller, L. Turkbey, B. Westphalen, A. C. |
author_sort | Ullrich, T. |
collection | PubMed |
description | PURPOSE: To subjectively and quantitatively compare the quality of 3 Tesla magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate acquired with a novel flexible surface coil (FSC) and with a conventional endorectal coil (ERC). METHODS: Six radiologists independently reviewed 200 pairs of axial, high-resolution T2-weighted and diffusion-weighted image data sets, each containing one examination acquired with the FSC and one with the ERC, respectively. Readers selected their preferred examination from each pair and assessed every single examination using six quality criteria on 4-point scales. Signal-to-noise ratios were measured and compared. RESULTS: Two readers preferred FSC acquisition (36.5–45%) over ERC acquisition (13.5–15%) for both sequences combined, and four readers preferred ERC acquisition (41–46%). Analysis of pooled responses for both sequences from all readers shows no significant preference for FSC or ERC. Analysis of the individual sequences revealed a pooled preference for the FSC in T2WI (38.7% vs 17.8%) and for the ERC in DWI (50.9% vs 19.6%). Patients’ weight was the only weak predictor of a preference for the ERC acquisition (p = 0.04). SNR and CNR were significantly higher in the ERC acquisitions (p<0.001) except CNR differentiating tumor lesions from benign prostate (p=0.1). CONCLUSION: Although readers have strong individual preferences, comparable subjective image quality can be obtained for prostate MRI with an ERC and the novel FSC. ERC imaging might be particularly valuable for sequences with inherently lower SNR as DWI and larger patients whereas the FSC is generally preferred in T2WI. FSC imaging generates a lower SNR than with an ERC. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s00261-020-02641-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7716937 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | Springer US |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-77169372020-12-04 Quality Comparison of 3 Tesla multiparametric MRI of the prostate using a flexible surface receiver coil versus conventional surface coil plus endorectal coil setup Ullrich, T. Kohli, M. D. Ohliger, M. A. Magudia, K. Arora, S. S. Barrett, T. Bittencourt, L. K. Margolis, D. J. Schimmöller, L. Turkbey, B. Westphalen, A. C. Abdom Radiol (NY) Pelvis PURPOSE: To subjectively and quantitatively compare the quality of 3 Tesla magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate acquired with a novel flexible surface coil (FSC) and with a conventional endorectal coil (ERC). METHODS: Six radiologists independently reviewed 200 pairs of axial, high-resolution T2-weighted and diffusion-weighted image data sets, each containing one examination acquired with the FSC and one with the ERC, respectively. Readers selected their preferred examination from each pair and assessed every single examination using six quality criteria on 4-point scales. Signal-to-noise ratios were measured and compared. RESULTS: Two readers preferred FSC acquisition (36.5–45%) over ERC acquisition (13.5–15%) for both sequences combined, and four readers preferred ERC acquisition (41–46%). Analysis of pooled responses for both sequences from all readers shows no significant preference for FSC or ERC. Analysis of the individual sequences revealed a pooled preference for the FSC in T2WI (38.7% vs 17.8%) and for the ERC in DWI (50.9% vs 19.6%). Patients’ weight was the only weak predictor of a preference for the ERC acquisition (p = 0.04). SNR and CNR were significantly higher in the ERC acquisitions (p<0.001) except CNR differentiating tumor lesions from benign prostate (p=0.1). CONCLUSION: Although readers have strong individual preferences, comparable subjective image quality can be obtained for prostate MRI with an ERC and the novel FSC. ERC imaging might be particularly valuable for sequences with inherently lower SNR as DWI and larger patients whereas the FSC is generally preferred in T2WI. FSC imaging generates a lower SNR than with an ERC. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s00261-020-02641-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. Springer US 2020-07-21 2020 /pmc/articles/PMC7716937/ /pubmed/32696213 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00261-020-02641-0 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. |
spellingShingle | Pelvis Ullrich, T. Kohli, M. D. Ohliger, M. A. Magudia, K. Arora, S. S. Barrett, T. Bittencourt, L. K. Margolis, D. J. Schimmöller, L. Turkbey, B. Westphalen, A. C. Quality Comparison of 3 Tesla multiparametric MRI of the prostate using a flexible surface receiver coil versus conventional surface coil plus endorectal coil setup |
title | Quality Comparison of 3 Tesla multiparametric MRI of the prostate using a flexible surface receiver coil versus conventional surface coil plus endorectal coil setup |
title_full | Quality Comparison of 3 Tesla multiparametric MRI of the prostate using a flexible surface receiver coil versus conventional surface coil plus endorectal coil setup |
title_fullStr | Quality Comparison of 3 Tesla multiparametric MRI of the prostate using a flexible surface receiver coil versus conventional surface coil plus endorectal coil setup |
title_full_unstemmed | Quality Comparison of 3 Tesla multiparametric MRI of the prostate using a flexible surface receiver coil versus conventional surface coil plus endorectal coil setup |
title_short | Quality Comparison of 3 Tesla multiparametric MRI of the prostate using a flexible surface receiver coil versus conventional surface coil plus endorectal coil setup |
title_sort | quality comparison of 3 tesla multiparametric mri of the prostate using a flexible surface receiver coil versus conventional surface coil plus endorectal coil setup |
topic | Pelvis |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7716937/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32696213 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00261-020-02641-0 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT ullricht qualitycomparisonof3teslamultiparametricmrioftheprostateusingaflexiblesurfacereceivercoilversusconventionalsurfacecoilplusendorectalcoilsetup AT kohlimd qualitycomparisonof3teslamultiparametricmrioftheprostateusingaflexiblesurfacereceivercoilversusconventionalsurfacecoilplusendorectalcoilsetup AT ohligerma qualitycomparisonof3teslamultiparametricmrioftheprostateusingaflexiblesurfacereceivercoilversusconventionalsurfacecoilplusendorectalcoilsetup AT magudiak qualitycomparisonof3teslamultiparametricmrioftheprostateusingaflexiblesurfacereceivercoilversusconventionalsurfacecoilplusendorectalcoilsetup AT arorass qualitycomparisonof3teslamultiparametricmrioftheprostateusingaflexiblesurfacereceivercoilversusconventionalsurfacecoilplusendorectalcoilsetup AT barrettt qualitycomparisonof3teslamultiparametricmrioftheprostateusingaflexiblesurfacereceivercoilversusconventionalsurfacecoilplusendorectalcoilsetup AT bittencourtlk qualitycomparisonof3teslamultiparametricmrioftheprostateusingaflexiblesurfacereceivercoilversusconventionalsurfacecoilplusendorectalcoilsetup AT margolisdj qualitycomparisonof3teslamultiparametricmrioftheprostateusingaflexiblesurfacereceivercoilversusconventionalsurfacecoilplusendorectalcoilsetup AT schimmollerl qualitycomparisonof3teslamultiparametricmrioftheprostateusingaflexiblesurfacereceivercoilversusconventionalsurfacecoilplusendorectalcoilsetup AT turkbeyb qualitycomparisonof3teslamultiparametricmrioftheprostateusingaflexiblesurfacereceivercoilversusconventionalsurfacecoilplusendorectalcoilsetup AT westphalenac qualitycomparisonof3teslamultiparametricmrioftheprostateusingaflexiblesurfacereceivercoilversusconventionalsurfacecoilplusendorectalcoilsetup |