Carcinoma of the prostate gland: MR imaging with pelvic phased-array coils versus integrated endorectal-pelvic phased-array coils

Hedvig Hricak, Scott White, Daniel Vigneron, John Kurhanewicz, Anne Kosco, David Levin, Jerome Weiss, Perinchery Narayan, Peter R. Carroll

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

281 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare the performance of pelvic phased-array (PPA) coils and integrated endorectal PPA coils in evaluation of local extent of prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy-one men underwent magnetic resonance (MR) imaging within 3 weeks of radical prostatectomy. MR findings of tumor, extracapsular extension, seminal vesicle invasion, nodal involvement, and stage were compared with step-sectioned (3-4-mm intervals) whole-mounted pathologic specimens. Prospective consensus versus single-reader interpretation (κ statistics) and PPA versus integrated endorectal PPA coils (McNemar test) were compared, and a rating scale of 1-6 was developed for analysis of receiver operating characteristics. Statistical significance was calculated at δ = .05. RESULTS: Comparison between consensus and single- reader image interpretation showed positive but poor agreement (κ = .38) and no statistical significance. Staging accuracy was better (difference approached significance) for integrated endorectal PPA coils (77%) than for PPA coils (68%). CONCLUSION: The integrated endorectal PPA coil is better for evaluation of local prostatic cancer than is the PPA coil.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)703-709
Number of pages7
JournalRadiology
Volume193
Issue number3
StatePublished - Dec 1994
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Prostate
Prostatic Neoplasms
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Carcinoma
Seminal Vesicles
Prostatectomy
ROC Curve
Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy
Neoplasms

Keywords

  • Magnetic resonance (MR), comparative studies
  • Magnetic resonance (MR), multicoil imaging
  • Prostate, neoplasms

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiological and Ultrasound Technology

Cite this

Hricak, H., White, S., Vigneron, D., Kurhanewicz, J., Kosco, A., Levin, D., ... Carroll, P. R. (1994). Carcinoma of the prostate gland: MR imaging with pelvic phased-array coils versus integrated endorectal-pelvic phased-array coils. Radiology, 193(3), 703-709.

Carcinoma of the prostate gland : MR imaging with pelvic phased-array coils versus integrated endorectal-pelvic phased-array coils. / Hricak, Hedvig; White, Scott; Vigneron, Daniel; Kurhanewicz, John; Kosco, Anne; Levin, David; Weiss, Jerome; Narayan, Perinchery; Carroll, Peter R.

In: Radiology, Vol. 193, No. 3, 12.1994, p. 703-709.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Hricak, H, White, S, Vigneron, D, Kurhanewicz, J, Kosco, A, Levin, D, Weiss, J, Narayan, P & Carroll, PR 1994, 'Carcinoma of the prostate gland: MR imaging with pelvic phased-array coils versus integrated endorectal-pelvic phased-array coils', Radiology, vol. 193, no. 3, pp. 703-709.
Hricak H, White S, Vigneron D, Kurhanewicz J, Kosco A, Levin D et al. Carcinoma of the prostate gland: MR imaging with pelvic phased-array coils versus integrated endorectal-pelvic phased-array coils. Radiology. 1994 Dec;193(3):703-709.
Hricak, Hedvig ; White, Scott ; Vigneron, Daniel ; Kurhanewicz, John ; Kosco, Anne ; Levin, David ; Weiss, Jerome ; Narayan, Perinchery ; Carroll, Peter R. / Carcinoma of the prostate gland : MR imaging with pelvic phased-array coils versus integrated endorectal-pelvic phased-array coils. In: Radiology. 1994 ; Vol. 193, No. 3. pp. 703-709.
@article{013505f1b60049aab7024fe20a86b421,
title = "Carcinoma of the prostate gland: MR imaging with pelvic phased-array coils versus integrated endorectal-pelvic phased-array coils",
abstract = "PURPOSE: To compare the performance of pelvic phased-array (PPA) coils and integrated endorectal PPA coils in evaluation of local extent of prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy-one men underwent magnetic resonance (MR) imaging within 3 weeks of radical prostatectomy. MR findings of tumor, extracapsular extension, seminal vesicle invasion, nodal involvement, and stage were compared with step-sectioned (3-4-mm intervals) whole-mounted pathologic specimens. Prospective consensus versus single-reader interpretation (κ statistics) and PPA versus integrated endorectal PPA coils (McNemar test) were compared, and a rating scale of 1-6 was developed for analysis of receiver operating characteristics. Statistical significance was calculated at δ = .05. RESULTS: Comparison between consensus and single- reader image interpretation showed positive but poor agreement (κ = .38) and no statistical significance. Staging accuracy was better (difference approached significance) for integrated endorectal PPA coils (77{\%}) than for PPA coils (68{\%}). CONCLUSION: The integrated endorectal PPA coil is better for evaluation of local prostatic cancer than is the PPA coil.",
keywords = "Magnetic resonance (MR), comparative studies, Magnetic resonance (MR), multicoil imaging, Prostate, neoplasms",
author = "Hedvig Hricak and Scott White and Daniel Vigneron and John Kurhanewicz and Anne Kosco and David Levin and Jerome Weiss and Perinchery Narayan and Carroll, {Peter R.}",
year = "1994",
month = "12",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "193",
pages = "703--709",
journal = "Radiology",
issn = "0033-8419",
publisher = "Radiological Society of North America Inc.",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Carcinoma of the prostate gland

T2 - MR imaging with pelvic phased-array coils versus integrated endorectal-pelvic phased-array coils

AU - Hricak, Hedvig

AU - White, Scott

AU - Vigneron, Daniel

AU - Kurhanewicz, John

AU - Kosco, Anne

AU - Levin, David

AU - Weiss, Jerome

AU - Narayan, Perinchery

AU - Carroll, Peter R.

PY - 1994/12

Y1 - 1994/12

N2 - PURPOSE: To compare the performance of pelvic phased-array (PPA) coils and integrated endorectal PPA coils in evaluation of local extent of prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy-one men underwent magnetic resonance (MR) imaging within 3 weeks of radical prostatectomy. MR findings of tumor, extracapsular extension, seminal vesicle invasion, nodal involvement, and stage were compared with step-sectioned (3-4-mm intervals) whole-mounted pathologic specimens. Prospective consensus versus single-reader interpretation (κ statistics) and PPA versus integrated endorectal PPA coils (McNemar test) were compared, and a rating scale of 1-6 was developed for analysis of receiver operating characteristics. Statistical significance was calculated at δ = .05. RESULTS: Comparison between consensus and single- reader image interpretation showed positive but poor agreement (κ = .38) and no statistical significance. Staging accuracy was better (difference approached significance) for integrated endorectal PPA coils (77%) than for PPA coils (68%). CONCLUSION: The integrated endorectal PPA coil is better for evaluation of local prostatic cancer than is the PPA coil.

AB - PURPOSE: To compare the performance of pelvic phased-array (PPA) coils and integrated endorectal PPA coils in evaluation of local extent of prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy-one men underwent magnetic resonance (MR) imaging within 3 weeks of radical prostatectomy. MR findings of tumor, extracapsular extension, seminal vesicle invasion, nodal involvement, and stage were compared with step-sectioned (3-4-mm intervals) whole-mounted pathologic specimens. Prospective consensus versus single-reader interpretation (κ statistics) and PPA versus integrated endorectal PPA coils (McNemar test) were compared, and a rating scale of 1-6 was developed for analysis of receiver operating characteristics. Statistical significance was calculated at δ = .05. RESULTS: Comparison between consensus and single- reader image interpretation showed positive but poor agreement (κ = .38) and no statistical significance. Staging accuracy was better (difference approached significance) for integrated endorectal PPA coils (77%) than for PPA coils (68%). CONCLUSION: The integrated endorectal PPA coil is better for evaluation of local prostatic cancer than is the PPA coil.

KW - Magnetic resonance (MR), comparative studies

KW - Magnetic resonance (MR), multicoil imaging

KW - Prostate, neoplasms

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0028113557&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0028113557&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 7972810

AN - SCOPUS:0028113557

VL - 193

SP - 703

EP - 709

JO - Radiology

JF - Radiology

SN - 0033-8419

IS - 3

ER -