Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorUllrich, T.
dc.contributor.authorKohli, M. D.
dc.contributor.authorOhliger, M. A.
dc.contributor.authorMagudia, K.
dc.contributor.authorArora, S. S.
dc.contributor.authorBarrett, T.
dc.contributor.authorBittencourt, L. K.
dc.contributor.authorMargolis, D. J.
dc.contributor.authorSchimmöller, L.
dc.contributor.authorTurkbey, B.
dc.contributor.authorWestphalen, A. C.
dc.date.accessioned2020-12-02T16:14:02Z
dc.date.available2020-12-02T16:14:02Z
dc.date.issued2020-07-21
dc.date.submitted2020-04-04
dc.identifier.issn2366-004X
dc.identifier.others00261-020-02641-0
dc.identifier.other2641
dc.identifier.urihttps://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/313920
dc.description.abstractAbstract: Purpose: To subjectively and quantitatively compare the quality of 3 Tesla magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate acquired with a novel flexible surface coil (FSC) and with a conventional endorectal coil (ERC). Methods: Six radiologists independently reviewed 200 pairs of axial, high-resolution T2-weighted and diffusion-weighted image data sets, each containing one examination acquired with the FSC and one with the ERC, respectively. Readers selected their preferred examination from each pair and assessed every single examination using six quality criteria on 4-point scales. Signal-to-noise ratios were measured and compared. Results: Two readers preferred FSC acquisition (36.5–45%) over ERC acquisition (13.5–15%) for both sequences combined, and four readers preferred ERC acquisition (41–46%). Analysis of pooled responses for both sequences from all readers shows no significant preference for FSC or ERC. Analysis of the individual sequences revealed a pooled preference for the FSC in T2WI (38.7% vs 17.8%) and for the ERC in DWI (50.9% vs 19.6%). Patients’ weight was the only weak predictor of a preference for the ERC acquisition (p = 0.04). SNR and CNR were significantly higher in the ERC acquisitions (p<0.001) except CNR differentiating tumor lesions from benign prostate (p=0.1). Conclusion: Although readers have strong individual preferences, comparable subjective image quality can be obtained for prostate MRI with an ERC and the novel FSC. ERC imaging might be particularly valuable for sequences with inherently lower SNR as DWI and larger patients whereas the FSC is generally preferred in T2WI. FSC imaging generates a lower SNR than with an ERC.
dc.languageen
dc.publisherSpringer US
dc.rightsAttribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)en
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/en
dc.subjectPelvis
dc.subjectMRI
dc.subjectProstate cancer
dc.subjectEarly diagnosis
dc.subjectQuality
dc.titleQuality Comparison of 3 Tesla multiparametric MRI of the prostate using a flexible surface receiver coil versus conventional surface coil plus endorectal coil setup
dc.typeArticle
dc.date.updated2020-12-02T16:14:01Z
prism.endingPage4270
prism.issueIdentifier12
prism.publicationNameAbdominal Radiology
prism.startingPage4260
prism.volume45
dc.identifier.doi10.17863/CAM.61023
dcterms.dateAccepted2020-07-04
rioxxterms.versionofrecord10.1007/s00261-020-02641-0
rioxxterms.versionVoR
rioxxterms.licenseref.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.contributor.orcidUllrich, T. [0000-0002-9866-8898]
dc.identifier.eissn2366-0058
pubs.funder-project-idDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (UL 505/1-1)
pubs.funder-project-idGE Healthcare (A131237, A131237)


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Thumbnail
Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
Except where otherwise noted, this item's licence is described as Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)