title: Performance comparison of 1.5-T endorectal coil MRI with 3.0-T nonendorectal coil MRI in patients with prostate cancer.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To compare prostate morphology, image quality, and diagnostic performance of 1.5-T endorectal coil magnetic resonance (MR) imaging (MRI) and 3.0-T nonendorectal coil MRI in patients with prostate cancer.
  
  
  METHODS
  MR images obtained of 83 patients with prostate cancer using 1.5-T MRI systems with an endorectal coil were compared to images collected from 83 patients with a 3.0-T MRI system. Prostate diameters were measured, and image quality was evaluated by one American Board of Radiology (ABR)-certified radiologist (reader 1) and one ABR-certified diagnostic medical physicist (reader 2). The likelihood of the presence of peripheral zone cancer in each sextant and local extent was rated and compared to histopathologic findings.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Prostate anterior-posterior diameter measured by both readers was significantly shorter with 1.5-T endorectal MRI than with 3.0-T MRI. The overall image quality score difference was significant only for reader 1. Both readers found that the two MRI systems provided a similar diagnostic accuracy in cancer localization, extraprostatic extension, and seminal vesicle involvement.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Nonendorectal coil 3.0-T MRI provides prostate images that are natural in shape and that have comparable image quality to those obtained at 1.5 T with an endorectal coil, but not superior diagnostic performance. These findings suggest an opportunity exists for improving technical aspects of the 3.0-T prostate MRI.
authors.affiliation: Department of Radiology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.
authors.forename: Zarine K
authors.initials: ZK
authors.lastname: Shah
authors.affiliation: Department of Radiology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.
authors.forename: Saba N
authors.initials: SN
authors.lastname: Elias
authors.affiliation: OhioHealth Dublin Methodist Hospital, Dublin, Ohio.
authors.forename: Ronney
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Abaza
authors.affiliation: Department of Pathology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.
authors.forename: Debra L
authors.initials: DL
authors.lastname: Zynger
authors.affiliation: Department of Pathology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.
authors.forename: Lawrence A
authors.initials: LA
authors.lastname: DeRenne
authors.affiliation: Department of Radiology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.
authors.forename: Michael V
authors.initials: MV
authors.lastname: Knopp
authors.affiliation: Department of Experimental Statistics, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
authors.forename: Beibei
authors.initials: B
authors.lastname: Guo
authors.affiliation: Department of Physics and Astronomy, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70803.
authors.forename: Ryan
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Schurr
authors.affiliation: Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
authors.forename: Steven B
authors.initials: SB
authors.lastname: Heymsfield
authors.affiliation: Department of Physics and Astronomy, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70803; Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Electronic address: gjia@lsu.edu.
authors.forename: Guang
authors.initials: G
authors.lastname: Jia
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D006801:Humans; D008279:Magnetic Resonance Imaging / Q000295:instrumentation* / Q000379:methods*; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D009367:Neoplasm Staging; D011467:Prostate / Q000473:pathology*; D011471:Prostatic Neoplasms / Q000175:diagnosis*; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity
keywords: Prostate cancer; endorectal coil; image quality; magnetic resonance imaging; tumor localization; tumor staging