Logo image
Back
Volume and landmark analysis: comparison of MRI measurements obtained with an endorectal coil and with a phased-array coil
Journal article   Open access   Peer reviewed

Volume and landmark analysis: comparison of MRI measurements obtained with an endorectal coil and with a phased-array coil

Y. Mazaheri, A. A. Afaq, S. I. Jung, D. A. Goldman, L. Wang, H. Asian, M. J. Zelefsky, O. Akin and H. Hricak
Clinical radiology, Vol.70(4), pp.379-386
04/01/2015
DOI: 10.1016/j.crad.2014.12.002
PMCID: PMC6777874
PMID: 25554540
url
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/6777874View
Open Access

Abstract

AIM: To compare prostate volumes and distances between anatomical landmarks on MRI images obtained with a phased-array coil (PAC) only and with a PAC and an endorectal coil (ERC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Informed consent was waived for this Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant study. Fifty-nine men underwent PAC-MRI and ERC-MRI at 1.5 (n = 3) or 3 T (n = 56). On MRI images, two radiologists independently measured prostate volume and distances between the anterior rectal wall (ARW) and symphysis pubis at the level of the verumontanum; ARW and symphysis pubis at the level of the mid-symphysis pubis; and bladder neck and mid-symphysis pubis. Differences between measurements from PAC-MRI and ERC-MRI were assessed with the Wilcoxon RANK SUM test. Inter-reader agreement was assessed using the concordance correlation coefficient (CCC). RESULTS: Differences in prostate volume between PAC-MRI and ERC-MRI [median: -0.75 mm(3) (p = 0.10) and median: -0.84 mm(3) (p = 0.06) for readers 1 and 2, respectively] were not significant. For readers 1 and 2, median differences between distances were as follows: -10.20 and -12.75 mm, respectively, ARW to symphysis pubis at the level of the verumontanum; -6.60 and -6.08 mm, respectively, ARW to symphysis pubis at the level of the mid-symphysis pubis; -3 and -3 mm respectively, bladder neck to mid-symphysis pubis. All differences in distance were significant for both readers (p <= 0.0005). Distances were larger on PAC-MRI (p <= 0.0005). Inter-reader agreement regarding prostate volume was almost perfect on PAC-MRI (CCC: 0.99; 95% CI: 0.98-1.00) and ERC-MRI (CCC: 0.99; 95% CI: 0.99-1.00); inter-reader agreement for distance measurements varied (CCCs: 0.54-0.86). CONCLUSION: Measurements of distances between anatomical landmarks differed significantly between ERC-MRI and PAC-MRI, although prostate volume measurements did not. (C) 2014 The Royal College of Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 Life Sciences & Biomedicine Radiology, Nuclear Medicine & Medical Imaging Science & Technology

Details

Metrics

25 Record Views
1 Times Cited - Web of Science
Logo image