Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Is endorectal coil necessary for the staging of clinically localized prostate cancer? Comparison of non-endorectal versus endorectal MR imaging

  • Original Article
  • Published:
World Journal of Urology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The goal of this study was to compare the diagnostic use and safety of endorectal coil (ERC) MRI with those of phased-array coil MRI.

Methods

We retrospectively included 91 consecutive patients who had undergone 1.5-T MRI with ERC or with phased-array coil MRI before radical prostatectomy at our institution. We compared 47 patients’ phased-array coil MRI and 44 patients’ ERC-MRI with histologic findings. We also evaluated adverse events following the MRI procedure.

Results

The serum PSA levels ranged from 2.85 to 33.51 ng/mL (10.72 ± 1.9), and the median Gleason score was 7 (range 4–9). The mean interval between diagnostic prostate biopsy and staging MRI was 18.4 days (range 2–37). In assessing organ-confined disease, extracapsular extension and seminal vesicle invasion by MRI, there were no significant differences between ERC-MR group and phased-array coil MR group. The AUC values were 0.671 (95% CI 0.530–0.813) for ERC-MR and 0.657 (95% CI 0.503–0.811) for phased-array coil MR. No significant differences were found between the two groups (p = 0.24). Five patients (11.4%) developed rectal complications after ERC-MRI. However, no complications were found in phased-array coil MRI group.

Conclusions

In terms of diagnostic accuracy and comfort of patients, the use of ERC-MRI did not significantly improve the staging of prostate cancer and presented several complications. Therefore, phased-array coil MRI is a better alternative considering comorbidity.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kim ET, Jeon SS, Chai SE, Kim BH, Choi HY (2001) The usefulness of endo-rectal coil MRI in the staging of clinically localized prostate cancer. Korean J Urol 42:500–505

    Google Scholar 

  2. Yancik R, Ries LA (2000) Aging and cancer in America. Demographic and epidemiologic perspectives. Hematol Oncol Clin N Am 14:17–23

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Engelbrecht MR, Jager GJ, Laheij RJ, Verbeek AL, van Lier HJ, Barentsz JO (2002) Local staging of prostate cancer using magnetic resonance imaging: a meta-analysis. Eur Radiol 12:2294–2302

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Jager GJ, Ruijter ET, van de Kaa CA et al (1997) Dynamic TurboFLASH subtraction technique for contrast-enhanced MR imaging of the prostate: correlation with histopathologic results. Radiology 203:645–652

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Presti JC Jr, Hricak H, Narayan PA, Shinohara K, White S, Carroll PR (1996) Local staging of prostatic carcinoma: comparison of transrectal sonography and endorectal MR imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 166:103–108

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Huisman HJ, Engelbrecht MR, Barentsz JO (2001) Accurate estimation of pharmacokinetic contrast-enhanced dynamic MRI parameters of the prostate. J Magn Reson Imaging 13:607–614

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Futterer JJ, Engelbrecht MR, Jager GJ et al (2007) Prostate cancer: comparison of local staging accuracy of pelvic phased-array coil alone versus integrated endorectal-pelvic phased-array coils. Local staging accuracy of prostate cancer using endorectal coil MR imaging. Eur Radiol 17:1055–1065

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Turkbey B, Albert PS, Kurdziel K, Choyke PL (2009) Imaging localized prostate cancer: current approaches and new developments. AJR Am J Roentgenol 192:1471–1480

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Kang SK, Chou RH, Dodge RK et al (2002) Gastrointestinal toxicity of transperineal interstitial prostate brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 53:99–103

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Sanchez-Chapado M, Angulo JC, Ibarburen C et al (1997) Comparison of digital rectal examination, transrectal ultrasonography, and multicoil magnetic resonance imaging for preoperative evaluation of prostate cancer. Eur Urol 32:140–149

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kundel HL, Polansky M (2003) Measurement of observer agreement. Radiology 228:303–308

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Hricak H, Wang L, Wei DC et al (2004) The role of preoperative endorectal magnetic resonance imaging in the decision regarding whether to preserve or resect neurovascular bundles during radical retropubic prostatectomy. Cancer 100:2655–2663

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Jackson AS, Reinsberg SA, Sohaib SA et al (2009) Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI for prostate cancer localization. Br J Radiol 82:148–156

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Puech P, Potiron E, Lemaitre L et al (2009) Dynamic contrast-enhanced-magnetic resonance imaging evaluation of intraprostatic prostate cancer: correlation with radical prostatectomy specimens. Urology 74:1094–1099

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Mirowitz SA (1992) Seminal vesicles: biopsy-related hemorrhage simulating tumor invasion at endorectal MR imaging. Radiology 185:373–376

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Ikonen S, Kivisaari L, Vehmas T et al (2001) Optimal timing of post-biopsy MR imaging of the prostate. Acta Radiol 42:70–73

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Qayyum A, Coakley FV, Lu Y et al (2004) Organ-confined prostate cancer: effect of prior transrectal biopsy on endorectal MRI and MR spectroscopic imaging. AJR 183:1079–1083

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Park KK, Lee SH, Lim BJ, Kim JH, Chung BH (2010) The effects of the time period between biopsy and diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging on cancer staging in localized prostate cancer. BJU (in press)

  19. Rifkin MD, Zerhouni EA, Gatsonis CA et al (1990) Comparison of magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography in staging early prostate cancer: results of a multi-institutional cooperative trial. N Engl J Med 323:621–626

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Zhang JQ, Loughlin KR, Zou KH, Haker S, Tempany CM (2007) Role of endorectal coil magnetic resonance imaging in treatment of patients with prostate cancer and in determining radical prostatectomy surgical margin status: report of a single surgeon’s practice. Urology 69:1134–1137

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Manzone TA, Malkowicz SB, Tomaszewski JE, Schnall MD, Langlotz CP (1998) Use of endorectal MR imaging to predict prostate carcinoma recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Radiology 209:537–542

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Wieder JA, Soloway MS (1998) Incidence, etiology, location, prevention and treatment of positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. J Urol 160:299–315

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Husband JE, Padhani AR, MacVicar AD, Revell P (1998) Magnetic resonance imaging of prostate cancer: comparison of image quality using endorectal and pelvic phased array coils. Clin Radiol 53:673–681

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Raaijmakers R, Kirkels WJ, Roobol MJ, Wildhagen MF, Schrder FH (2002) Complication rates and risk factors of 5802 transrectal ultrasound-guided sextant biopsies of the prostate within a population-based screening program. Urology 60:826–830

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Peyromaure M, Ravery V, Messas A, Toublanc M, Boccon-Gibod L (2002) Pain and morbidity of an extensive prostate 10-biopsy protocol: a prospective study in 289 patients. J Urol 167:218–221

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Daniel M, Jeffrey C (2007) MR imaging of the prostate: 1.5T versus 3T. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 15:433–448

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Burkhard FC, Studer UE (2008) The role of lymphadenectomy in high-risk prostate cancer. World J Urol 26:231–236

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Yonsei University Health System, Gangnam Severance Hospital, P.O. Box 1217, Seoul, Korea

    Seung Hwan Lee, Kyung Kgi Park, Kyung Hwa Choi & Byung Ha Chung

  2. Department of Pathology, Yonsei University Health System, Seoul, Korea

    Beom Jin Lim

  3. Department of Radiology, Yonsei University Health System, Seoul, Korea

    Joo Hee Kim

  4. Department of Urology, Eulji Medical Center, Eulji University, Seoul, Korea

    Seung Wook Lee

Authors
  1. Seung Hwan Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kyung Kgi Park
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kyung Hwa Choi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Beom Jin Lim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Joo Hee Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Seung Wook Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Byung Ha Chung
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Byung Ha Chung.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lee, S.H., Park, K.K., Choi, K.H. et al. Is endorectal coil necessary for the staging of clinically localized prostate cancer? Comparison of non-endorectal versus endorectal MR imaging. World J Urol 28, 667–672 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-010-0579-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-010-0579-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation