Josephin Gawlitza1, Martin Reiss-Zimmermann1, Gregor Thörmer1, Alexander Schaudinn1, Nikita Garnov1, Lars-Christian Horn2, Minh Do3, Roman Ganzer3, Jens-Uwe Stolzenburg3, Thomas Kahn1, Michael Moche1, and Harald Busse1
1Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Leipzig University Hospital, Leipzig, Germany, 2Institute of Pathology, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany, 3Urology Department, Leipzig University Hospital, Leipzig, Germany
Synopsis
Multiparametric MRI has been
shown to improve detection, localization and characterization of patients with
suspected prostate cancer (PCa). The current PIRADS guideline (v2, 2015) states
that the additional use of an endorectal imaging coil (ERC) increases SNR at
any magnetic field strength which may be particularly useful for staging and inherently
lower SNR sequences (DWI or DCE). On the other hand, phased array coils with 16
or more elements may also provide adequate SNR. This work assesses the potential benefit of an ERC for the detection of prostate cancer–
within the same patients.
Purpose
Multiparametric MRI (mpMRI)
has been shown to improve detection, localization and characterization in
patients with suspected prostate cancer (PCa). The current PIRADS (prostate imaging reporting and data system) guideline (v2, 2015) states
that the additional use of an endorectal imaging coil (ERC) increases SNR in
the prostate at any magnetic field strength which may be particularly valuable
for high spatial resolution imaging used in cancer staging and for inherently
lower SNR sequences, such as DWI and high temporal resolution DCE [1]. On the
other hand, the mere use of phased array coils with a relatively high number of
elements (e.g., 16+) may also provide adequate SNR in many patients. The goal
of this work was to assess, within the same patients, the potential
benefit of an ERC for MRI detection of prostate cancer.Materials and Methods
Our
prospective, cross-sectional study was approved by the institutional review
board. Prior to radical prostatectomy, 41 male patients underwent 3T MRI. T2-
and diffusion-weighted images were acquired twice using (i) surface coils
combined with an endorectal coil and (ii) surface (phased-array) coils only.
Two blinded readers (A and B with 70 and 160 prostate readings, respectively)
randomly evaluated all image data in two separate sessions. The quality of
localization- and staging-specific image features was rated on a five-point
scale and cancer-suspicious lesions were assumed for PIRADS scores of 4 or 5. The
standard of reference was provided by histological work-up of whole-mount
sections by a senior pathologist.Results and Discussion
A summary of patient characteristics and
histopathological results is given in Figure 1. The following results are reported as values obtained with combined coils (ERC) versus
those observed with SC only. Overall, subjective scores of image quality were
significantly (p<0.001) higher for ERC. A breakdown of the results for
individual evaluation criteria is given in Fig. 2. Both readers reported more
cancer-suspicious lesions (A: 62 vs. 49, B: 65 vs. 48). Detection rates of
confirmed cancerous lesions were similar for A, 74% vs.78% (46/62 vs. 38/49),
and significantly (p<0.05) higher for B, 86% vs. 69% (56/65 vs. 33/48). Both
readers correctly diagnosed a higher proportion of patients with prostate
cancer (A: 88% vs. 78%, B: 98% vs. 68%). Figure 3 shows a sample case of a 71
year-old patient with prostate cancer in the left transitional and peripheral zone.
Figure 4
summarizes the detected PCa lesions with corresponding sizes and Gleason scores.
Conclusion
The subjectively rated 3-T MR image quality scores related
to the detection, localization and staging of prostate cancer were improved
with a dedicated organ coil. In terms of diagnostic performance, the numbers of
true cancer foci and of patients with cancer were higher but also that of false
positive results.Acknowledgements
Grant support through BMBF 13N10360 (2009-2013) is greatly acknowledged. References
[1] PIRADS v2: http://www.acr.org/~/media/ACR/Documents/PDF/QualitySafety/Resources/PIRADS/PIRADS%20V2.pdf
(accessed on 11/08/2016)