title: [MRI of prostate cancer using three different coil systems: image quality, tumor detection, and staging].
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To compare three MRI coil systems in terms of image quality, delineation of prostate cancer, and tumor staging.
  
  
  METHODS
  49 patients with prostate cancer underwent MRI at 1.5 Tesla using a combination of an endorectal coil with a phased-array body coil (combination coil) prior to radical prostatectomy. Images were reconstructed from the data sets acquired with the endorectal coil alone and from those acquired with the combined coil. In addition, 19 patients of the study patients were examined with the body phased-array coil alone without the endorectal coil. The prostate was imaged at a slice thickness of 3 mm using axial and coronal T 2 -weighted sequences and an axial T 1 -weighted sequence. Preoperative analysis of all images acquired was done to determine the accuracy of MRI in local staging of prostate cancer. An additional retrospective analysis served to compare the different coil systems in terms of overall image quality, delineation and localization of the tumor, and criteria for local staging of prostate cancer.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Preoperative analysis showed MRI to have an accuracy of 59 % in local tumor staging. Retrospective coil-by-coil analysis demonstrated image quality and tumor delineation to be best for the combination coil and the endorectal coil. Regarding the staging criteria for transcapsular tumor extension and infiltration of adjacent organs, a significant advantage of the combination coil compared to the endorectal coil was identified only for the criterion of smooth bulging. In addition, the endorectal coil and the combination coil were found to be superior to the body phased-array coil in assessing 15 of 17 criteria for local tumor staging but the differences were not significant.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  In view of the achieved superior image quality, the combination coil or the endorectal coil is the preferred method for staging prostate cancer.
authors.affiliation: Institut für Radiologie, Charité, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin. dirk.beyersdorff@charite.de
authors.forename: D
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Beyersdorff
authors.forename: U
authors.initials: U
authors.lastname: Darsow
authors.forename: C
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Stephan
authors.forename: D
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Schnorr
authors.forename: S
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Loening
authors.forename: M
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Taupitz
mesh_terms: D000368:Aged; D006801:Humans; D007089:Image Enhancement / Q000295:instrumentation*; D007091:Image Processing, Computer-Assisted / Q000295:instrumentation*; D008197:Lymph Node Excision; D008198:Lymph Nodes / Q000473:pathology; D008279:Magnetic Resonance Imaging / Q000295:instrumentation*; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D009367:Neoplasm Staging; D011446:Prospective Studies; D011467:Prostate / Q000473:pathology; D017430:Prostate-Specific Antigen / Q000097:blood; D011468:Prostatectomy; D011471:Prostatic Neoplasms / Q000175:diagnosis* / Q000473:pathology / Q000601:surgery; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity
chemical_list: D017430:Prostate-Specific Antigen