Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Doctor, a patient is on the phone asking about the endorectal coil!

  • Special Section: Prostate cancer update
  • Published:
Abdominal Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The question referred to in the title of this article is a relatively common situation when performing prostate MRI in some healthcare settings. Moreover, the answer is not always straightforward. The decisions on type of receiver coil for prostate MRI and whether or not an endorectal coil (ERC) should be used is based on several factors. These relate to the patient (e.g., body habitus, presence of metallic devices in the pelvis), the focus of the exam (diagnosis, staging, recurrence), and characteristics of the MRI system (e.g., magnetic field strength and hardware components including coil design and number of elements/channels available in the surface coil). Historically, the combined use of an ERC and a surface coil was the optimal combination for maximizing the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), particularly for low-strength magnetic fields (1.5T). However, there are several disadvantages associated with the use of an ERC, and several studies have advocated equivalent clinical performance of modern MRI systems for diagnosis and staging of prostate cancer (PCa), either with ERC or surface alone. Accordingly, there is a wide variation in the precise imaging technique across institutions. This article focuses on the most relevant aspects of the decision of whether to use an ERC for PCa MR imaging.

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
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Litwin MS, Tan HJ. The diagnosis and treatment of prostate cancer: a review. JAMA 2017;317:2532e42. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2017.7248.

  2. Panebianco V, Valerio MC, Giuliani A et al. Clinical Utility of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging as the First-line Tool for Men with High Clinical Suspicion of Prostate Cancer. Eur Urol Oncol. 2018;1(3):208-214. doi: 10.1016/j.euo.2018.03.008

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Heijmink SW, Futterer JJ, Hambrock T, et al. Prostate cancer: body- array versus endorectal coil MR imaging at 3T comparison of image quality, localization, and staging performance. Radiology 2007;244:184e95.

  4. Futterer JJ, Engelbrecht MR, Jager GJ, et al. 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 2007;17:1055e65.

  5. Turkbey B, Merino MJ, Gallardo EC, et al. Comparison of endorectal coil and non-endorectal coil T2W and DW MRI at 3T for localizing prostate cancer: correlation with whole-mount histopathology. J Magn Reson Imaging 2014;39:1443e8. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.24317.

  6. Shah ZK, Elias SN, Abaza R, et al. Performance comparison of 1.5-T endorectal coil MRI with 3.0-T non endorectal coil MRI in patients with prostate cancer. Acad Radiol 2015;22:467e74.

  7. Barth BK, Rupp NJ, Cornelius et al. A Diagnostic Accuracy of a MR Protocol Acquired with and without Endorectal Coil for Detection of Prostate Cancer: A Multicenter Study. Curr Urol. 2019;12(2):88-96. https://doi.org/10.1159/000489425.

  8. Costa DN, Yuan Q, Xi Y et al. Comparison of prostate cancer detection at 3-T MRI with and without an endorectal coil: A prospective, paired-patient study. Urol Oncol. 2016;34(6):255.e7-255.e13. doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2016.02.009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Barth BK, Cornelius A, Nanz D, et al. Comparison of image quality and patient discomfort in prostate MRI: pelvic phased array coil vs. an endorectal coil. Abdom Radiol 2016;41(11):2218e26.

  10. Stocker D, Manoliu A, Becker AS, et al. Image quality and geometric distortion of modern diffusion-weighted imaging sequences in magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate. Invest Radiol. 2018;53:200–206. doi: 10.1097/RLI.0000000000000429

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Stabile A, Giganti F, Emberton M, Moore CM. MRI in prostate cancer diagnosis: do we need to add standard sampling? a review of the last 5 years. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2018;21(4):473–487

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Padhani AR, Barentsz J, Villeirs G et al. PI-RADS Steering Committee: The PI-RADS Multiparametric MRI and MRI-directed Biopsy Pathway. Radiology. 2019 Aug;292(2):464-474. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2019182946.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL et al. PI-RADS Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System: 2015, version 2. Eur Urol 2016;69(1):16–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Turkbey B, Rosenkrantz AB, Haider MA et al. Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2.1: 2019 update of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2. Eur Urol 2019, 76:340-351. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2019.02.033.

  15. Martin JF, Hajek P. Baker L, Gylys-Morin V. Fitzmonnis-Glass R, Mattrey RR. Inflatable surface coil for MR imaging of the prostate. Radiology 1988; 167:268-270.

  16. Bloch BN, Rofsky NM, Baroni RH, Marquis RP, Pedrosa I, Lenkinski RE. 3 Tesla magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate with combined pelvic phased-array and endorectal coils; Initial experience. Acad. Radiol. 2004; 11:863–867. DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2004.04.017.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Ullrich T, Quentin M, Oelers C et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate at 1.5 versus 3.0T: A prospective comparison study of image quality. Eur J Radiol. 2017 May;90:192-197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2017.02.044

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Mirak SA, Shakeri S, Bajgiran AM, et al. Three Tesla Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Comparison of Performance with and without Endorectal Coil for Prostate Cancer Detection, PI-RADS™ version 2 Category and Staging with Whole Mount Histopathology Correlation. J Urol. 2019;201(3):496-502. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2018.09.054.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Gelber ND, Ragland RL, Knorr JR. Surface coil MR imaging: utility of image intensity correction filter. Am J Roentgenol. 1994;162(3):695–7. doi:10.2214/ajr.162.3.8109524.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Golshan HM, Hasanzadeh RP, Yousefzadeh SC. An MRI denoising method using image data redundancy and local SNR estimation. Magn Reson Imaging. 2013;31(7):1206–1217.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Carucci LR. Imaging obese patients: problems and solutions. Abdom Imaging 2013, 38:630–646. DOI: 10.1007/s00261-012-9959-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Warndahl BA, Borisch EA, Kawashima A, Riederer SJ, Froemming AT. Conventional vs. reduced field of view diffusion weighted imaging of the prostate: Comparison of image quality, correlation with histology, and inter-reader agreement. Magn Reson Imaging. 2018;47:67-76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mri.2017.10.01

  24. Engels RM, Israel B, Padhani AR, Barentsz J. Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging for the Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: What Urologists Need to Know. Part 1: Acquisition. European Urology ahead of print. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2019.09.021

  25. Baur AD, Daqqaq T, Wagner M, et al. T2- and diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging at 3T for the detection of prostate cancer with and without endorectal coil: An intraindividual comparison of image quality and diagnostic performance. Eur J Radiol, 2016; 85: 1075-1084.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Gawlitza J, Reiss-Zimmermann M, Thörmer G et al. Impact of the use of an endorectal coil for 3 T prostate MRI on image quality and cancer detection rate. Sci Rep. 2017 1;7:40640. doi: 10.1038/srep40640.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Shaish H, Kang SK, Rosenkrantz AB. The utility of quantitative ADC values for differentiating high-risk from low-risk prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Abdom Radiol 2017, 42:260–270 DOI: 10.1007/s00261-016-0848-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Torricelli P, Cinquantini F, Ligabue G, et al. Comparative evaluation between external phased array coil at 3 T and an endorectal coil at 1.5 T: preliminary results. J Comp Assist Tomogr 2006;30(3):355e61.

  29. Kim BS, Kim TH, Kwon TG, et al. Comparison of pelvic phased-array versus endorectal coil magnetic resonance imaging at 3 Tesla for local staging of prostate cancer. Yonsei Med J. 2011; 53:550–556. doi: 10.3349/ymj.2012.53.3.550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Lee SH, Park KK, Choi KH, 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. 2010; 28(6):667-72. doi: 10.1007/s00345-010-0579-6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Pooli A, Isharwal S, Cook G, Oliveto JM, LaGrange CA. Does endorectal coil MRI increase the accuracy of preoperative prostate cancer staging? Can J Urol. 2016; 23(6):8564-8567.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Tirumani SH, Suh CH, Kim KW, Shinagare AB, Ramaiya NH, Fennessy FM.Head-to-head comparison of prostate MRI using an endorectal coil versus a non-endorectal coil: meta-analysis of diagnostic performance in staging T3 prostate cancer. Clin Radiol. 2019 9: S0009-9260(19)30590-2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2019.09.142.

  33. de Rooij M, Hamoen EH, Witjes JA, Barentsz JO, Rovers MM. Accuracy of Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Local Staging of Prostate Cancer: A Diagnostic Meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2016;70(2):233-45. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.07.029.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Tempany CM, Zhou X, Zerhouni EA, et al. Staging of prostate cancer: results of Radiology Diagnostic Oncology Group project comparison of three MR imaging techniques. Radiology 1994;192(1):47e54.

  35. Payne GS. Clinical applications of in vivo magnetic resonance spectroscopy in oncology. Phys Med Biol. 2018 26;63(21):21TR02. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6560/aae61e

  36. Mazaheri Y, Shukla-Dave A, Goldman DA. Characterization of prostate cancer with MR spectroscopic imaging and diffusion-weighted imaging at 3 Tesla. Magn Reson Imaging. 2019;55:93-102. doi: 10.1016/j.mri.2018.08.025.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Ma C, Chen L, Scheenen TW, Lu J, Wang J.Three-dimensional proton magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging with and without an endorectal coil: a prostate phantom study. Acta Radiol. 2015;56(11):1342-9. doi: 10.1177/0284185114556704.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Hoffner MK, Huebner F, Scholtz JE et al. Impact of an endorectal coil for 1H-magnetic resonance spectroscopy of the prostate at 3.0T in comparison to 1.5T: Do we need an endorectal coil? Eur J Radiol. 2016; 85(8):1432-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2016.05.019

  39. Yakar D, Heijmink SW, Hulsbergen-van de Kaa CA et al. Initial results of 3-dimensional 1H-magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging in the localization of prostate cancer at 3 Tesla: should we use an endorectal coil? Invest Radiol. 2011; 46(5):301-6. https://doi.org/10.1097/rli.0b013e3182007503.

  40. Verma S, Rajesh A, Futterer J, et al. Prostate MRI and 3D MR Spectroscopy: How We Do It. Am J Roentgen. 2010;194:1414-1426. 10.2214/AJR.10.4312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Caglic I, Hansen NL, Slough RA, Patterson AJ, Barrett T. Evaluating the effect of rectal distension on prostate multiparametric MRI image quality. Eur J Radiol, 90 (2017), 174-180

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. van Griethuysen JJM, Bus EM, Hauptmann M, et al. Gas-induced susceptibility artefacts on diffusion-weighted MRI of the rectum at 1.5 T - effect of applying a micro-enema to improve image quality. Eur J Radiol 2018;99:131e7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2017.12.020.

  43. Lim C, Quon J, McInnes M, Shabana WM, El-Khodary M, Schieda N. Does a cleansing enema improve image quality of 3T surface coil multiparametric prostate MRI? J Magn Reson Imaging. 2015;42(3):689-97. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.24833.

  44. Mazaheri Y, Vargas HA, Nyman G, Akin O, Hricak H. Image Artifacts on Prostate Diffusion-weighted Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Trade-offs at 1.5 Tesla and 3.0 Tesla. Acad Radiol. 2013; 20(8): 1041–1047. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2013.04.005

  45. Padhani AR, Khoo VS, Suckling J, et al. Evaluating the effect of rectal distension and rectal movement on prostate gland position using cine MRI. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1999;44:525e33. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-3016(99)00040-1

  46. Caglic I, Barret T. Optimising prostate mpMRI: prepare for success. Clinical Radiology 74 (2019) 831e840. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2018.12.003.

  47. Rosen Y, Bloch BN, Lenkinski RE, et al. 3 T MR of the prostate: reducing susceptibility gradients by inflating the endorectal coil with a barium sulfate suspension. Magn Reson Med. 2007;57:898–904. doi: 10.1002/mrm.21166.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Haesun Choi, Jingfei Ma. Use of Perfluorocarbon Compound in the Endorectal Coil to Improve MR Spectroscopy of the Prostate. American Journal of Roentgenology. 2008;190: 1055-1059. 10.2214/AJR.07.299.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Choi YJ, Kim JK, Kim N, Kim KW, Choi EK, Cho KS. Functional MR imaging of prostate cancer. Radiographics. 2007;27:63–75

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Medical Images, Radiation Therapy and Oncohematology, Ribeirao Preto Medical School, Hospital Clinicas, University of São Paulo, Av. Bandeirantes 3900, Campus Monte Alegre, Ribeirão Prêto, 14049-900, Brazil

    Valdair Francisco Muglia

  2. Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA

    Hebert Alberto Vargas

Authors
  1. Valdair Francisco Muglia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hebert Alberto Vargas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Valdair Francisco Muglia.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Muglia, V.F., Vargas, H.A. Doctor, a patient is on the phone asking about the endorectal coil!. Abdom Radiol 45, 4003–4011 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-020-02528-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-020-02528-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation