Prostate cancer: Comparison of local staging accuracy of pelvic phased-array coil alone versus integrated endorectal-pelvic phased-array coils

Jurgen J. Fütterer, Marc R. Engelbrecht, Gerrit J. Jager, Robert P. Hartman, Bernard Francis King, Christina A. Hulsbergen-Van de Kaa, J. Alfred Witjes, Jelle O. Barentsz

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

137 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

To compare the visibility of anatomical details and prostate cancer local staging performance of pelvic phased-array coil and integrated endorectal-pelvic phased-array coil MR imaging, with histologic analysis serving as the reference standard. MR imaging was performed in 81 consecutive patients with biopsy-proved prostate cancer, prior to radical prostatectomy, on a 1.5T scanner. T2-weighted fast spin echo images of the prostate were obtained using phased-array coil and endorectal-pelvic phased-array coils. Prospectively, one radiologist, retrospectively, two radiologists and two less experienced radiologists working in consensus, evaluated and scored all endorectal-pelvic phased-array imaging, with regard to visibility of anatomical details and local staging. Receiver operator characteristics (ROC) analysis was performed. Anatomical details of the overall prostate were significantly better evaluated using the endorectal-pelvic phased-array coil setup (P<0.05). The overall local staging accuracy, sensitivity and specificity for the pelvic phased-array coil was 59% (48/81), 56% (20/36) and 62% (28/45), and for the endorectal-pelvic phased-array coils 83% (67/81), 64% (23/36) and 98% (44/45) respectively, for the prospective reader. Accuracy and specificity were significantly better with endorectal-pelvic phased-array coils (P<0.05). The overall staging accuracy, sensitivity and specificity for the retrospective readers were 78-79% (P<0.05), 56-58% and 96%, for the endorectal-pelvic phased-array coils. Area under the ROC curve (Az) was significantly higher for endorectal-pelvic phased-array coils (Az=0.74) compared to pelvic phased-array coil (Az=0.57), for the prospective reader. The use of endorectal - pelvic phased array coils resulted in significant improvement of anatomic details, extracapsular extension accuracy and specificity. Overstaging is reduced significantly with equal sensitivity when an endorectal-pelvic phased-array coil is used.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1055-1065
Number of pages11
JournalEuropean Radiology
Volume17
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 2007

Fingerprint

Prostatic Neoplasms
Prostate
Sensitivity and Specificity
Neoplasm Staging
Prostatectomy
Biopsy
Radiologists

Keywords

  • Comparative studies
  • Magnetic resonance (MR)
  • Prostate neoplasms

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
  • Radiological and Ultrasound Technology

Cite this

Fütterer, J. J., Engelbrecht, M. R., Jager, G. J., Hartman, R. P., King, B. F., Hulsbergen-Van de Kaa, C. A., ... Barentsz, J. O. (2007). Prostate cancer: Comparison of local staging accuracy of pelvic phased-array coil alone versus integrated endorectal-pelvic phased-array coils. European Radiology, 17(4), 1055-1065. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-006-0418-8

Prostate cancer : Comparison of local staging accuracy of pelvic phased-array coil alone versus integrated endorectal-pelvic phased-array coils. / Fütterer, Jurgen J.; Engelbrecht, Marc R.; Jager, Gerrit J.; Hartman, Robert P.; King, Bernard Francis; Hulsbergen-Van de Kaa, Christina A.; Witjes, J. Alfred; Barentsz, Jelle O.

In: European Radiology, Vol. 17, No. 4, 04.2007, p. 1055-1065.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Fütterer, JJ, Engelbrecht, MR, Jager, GJ, Hartman, RP, King, BF, Hulsbergen-Van de Kaa, CA, Witjes, JA & Barentsz, JO 2007, 'Prostate cancer: Comparison of local staging accuracy of pelvic phased-array coil alone versus integrated endorectal-pelvic phased-array coils', European Radiology, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 1055-1065. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-006-0418-8
Fütterer, Jurgen J. ; Engelbrecht, Marc R. ; Jager, Gerrit J. ; Hartman, Robert P. ; King, Bernard Francis ; Hulsbergen-Van de Kaa, Christina A. ; Witjes, J. Alfred ; Barentsz, Jelle O. / Prostate cancer : Comparison of local staging accuracy of pelvic phased-array coil alone versus integrated endorectal-pelvic phased-array coils. In: European Radiology. 2007 ; Vol. 17, No. 4. pp. 1055-1065.
@article{5bc440cae63442bf8775a6a4d734206b,
title = "Prostate cancer: Comparison of local staging accuracy of pelvic phased-array coil alone versus integrated endorectal-pelvic phased-array coils",
abstract = "To compare the visibility of anatomical details and prostate cancer local staging performance of pelvic phased-array coil and integrated endorectal-pelvic phased-array coil MR imaging, with histologic analysis serving as the reference standard. MR imaging was performed in 81 consecutive patients with biopsy-proved prostate cancer, prior to radical prostatectomy, on a 1.5T scanner. T2-weighted fast spin echo images of the prostate were obtained using phased-array coil and endorectal-pelvic phased-array coils. Prospectively, one radiologist, retrospectively, two radiologists and two less experienced radiologists working in consensus, evaluated and scored all endorectal-pelvic phased-array imaging, with regard to visibility of anatomical details and local staging. Receiver operator characteristics (ROC) analysis was performed. Anatomical details of the overall prostate were significantly better evaluated using the endorectal-pelvic phased-array coil setup (P<0.05). The overall local staging accuracy, sensitivity and specificity for the pelvic phased-array coil was 59{\%} (48/81), 56{\%} (20/36) and 62{\%} (28/45), and for the endorectal-pelvic phased-array coils 83{\%} (67/81), 64{\%} (23/36) and 98{\%} (44/45) respectively, for the prospective reader. Accuracy and specificity were significantly better with endorectal-pelvic phased-array coils (P<0.05). The overall staging accuracy, sensitivity and specificity for the retrospective readers were 78-79{\%} (P<0.05), 56-58{\%} and 96{\%}, for the endorectal-pelvic phased-array coils. Area under the ROC curve (Az) was significantly higher for endorectal-pelvic phased-array coils (Az=0.74) compared to pelvic phased-array coil (Az=0.57), for the prospective reader. The use of endorectal - pelvic phased array coils resulted in significant improvement of anatomic details, extracapsular extension accuracy and specificity. Overstaging is reduced significantly with equal sensitivity when an endorectal-pelvic phased-array coil is used.",
keywords = "Comparative studies, Magnetic resonance (MR), Prostate neoplasms",
author = "F{\"u}tterer, {Jurgen J.} and Engelbrecht, {Marc R.} and Jager, {Gerrit J.} and Hartman, {Robert P.} and King, {Bernard Francis} and {Hulsbergen-Van de Kaa}, {Christina A.} and Witjes, {J. Alfred} and Barentsz, {Jelle O.}",
year = "2007",
month = "4",
doi = "10.1007/s00330-006-0418-8",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "17",
pages = "1055--1065",
journal = "European Radiology",
issn = "0938-7994",
publisher = "Springer Verlag",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Prostate cancer

T2 - Comparison of local staging accuracy of pelvic phased-array coil alone versus integrated endorectal-pelvic phased-array coils

AU - Fütterer, Jurgen J.

AU - Engelbrecht, Marc R.

AU - Jager, Gerrit J.

AU - Hartman, Robert P.

AU - King, Bernard Francis

AU - Hulsbergen-Van de Kaa, Christina A.

AU - Witjes, J. Alfred

AU - Barentsz, Jelle O.

PY - 2007/4

Y1 - 2007/4

N2 - To compare the visibility of anatomical details and prostate cancer local staging performance of pelvic phased-array coil and integrated endorectal-pelvic phased-array coil MR imaging, with histologic analysis serving as the reference standard. MR imaging was performed in 81 consecutive patients with biopsy-proved prostate cancer, prior to radical prostatectomy, on a 1.5T scanner. T2-weighted fast spin echo images of the prostate were obtained using phased-array coil and endorectal-pelvic phased-array coils. Prospectively, one radiologist, retrospectively, two radiologists and two less experienced radiologists working in consensus, evaluated and scored all endorectal-pelvic phased-array imaging, with regard to visibility of anatomical details and local staging. Receiver operator characteristics (ROC) analysis was performed. Anatomical details of the overall prostate were significantly better evaluated using the endorectal-pelvic phased-array coil setup (P<0.05). The overall local staging accuracy, sensitivity and specificity for the pelvic phased-array coil was 59% (48/81), 56% (20/36) and 62% (28/45), and for the endorectal-pelvic phased-array coils 83% (67/81), 64% (23/36) and 98% (44/45) respectively, for the prospective reader. Accuracy and specificity were significantly better with endorectal-pelvic phased-array coils (P<0.05). The overall staging accuracy, sensitivity and specificity for the retrospective readers were 78-79% (P<0.05), 56-58% and 96%, for the endorectal-pelvic phased-array coils. Area under the ROC curve (Az) was significantly higher for endorectal-pelvic phased-array coils (Az=0.74) compared to pelvic phased-array coil (Az=0.57), for the prospective reader. The use of endorectal - pelvic phased array coils resulted in significant improvement of anatomic details, extracapsular extension accuracy and specificity. Overstaging is reduced significantly with equal sensitivity when an endorectal-pelvic phased-array coil is used.

AB - To compare the visibility of anatomical details and prostate cancer local staging performance of pelvic phased-array coil and integrated endorectal-pelvic phased-array coil MR imaging, with histologic analysis serving as the reference standard. MR imaging was performed in 81 consecutive patients with biopsy-proved prostate cancer, prior to radical prostatectomy, on a 1.5T scanner. T2-weighted fast spin echo images of the prostate were obtained using phased-array coil and endorectal-pelvic phased-array coils. Prospectively, one radiologist, retrospectively, two radiologists and two less experienced radiologists working in consensus, evaluated and scored all endorectal-pelvic phased-array imaging, with regard to visibility of anatomical details and local staging. Receiver operator characteristics (ROC) analysis was performed. Anatomical details of the overall prostate were significantly better evaluated using the endorectal-pelvic phased-array coil setup (P<0.05). The overall local staging accuracy, sensitivity and specificity for the pelvic phased-array coil was 59% (48/81), 56% (20/36) and 62% (28/45), and for the endorectal-pelvic phased-array coils 83% (67/81), 64% (23/36) and 98% (44/45) respectively, for the prospective reader. Accuracy and specificity were significantly better with endorectal-pelvic phased-array coils (P<0.05). The overall staging accuracy, sensitivity and specificity for the retrospective readers were 78-79% (P<0.05), 56-58% and 96%, for the endorectal-pelvic phased-array coils. Area under the ROC curve (Az) was significantly higher for endorectal-pelvic phased-array coils (Az=0.74) compared to pelvic phased-array coil (Az=0.57), for the prospective reader. The use of endorectal - pelvic phased array coils resulted in significant improvement of anatomic details, extracapsular extension accuracy and specificity. Overstaging is reduced significantly with equal sensitivity when an endorectal-pelvic phased-array coil is used.

KW - Comparative studies

KW - Magnetic resonance (MR)

KW - Prostate neoplasms

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=34248678705&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=34248678705&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s00330-006-0418-8

DO - 10.1007/s00330-006-0418-8

M3 - Article

C2 - 17024497

AN - SCOPUS:34248678705

VL - 17

SP - 1055

EP - 1065

JO - European Radiology

JF - European Radiology

SN - 0938-7994

IS - 4

ER -