1
|
Muglia VF, Vargas HA. Doctor, a patient is on the phone asking about the endorectal coil! Abdom Radiol (NY) 2020; 45:4003-4011. [PMID: 32300836 DOI: 10.1007/s00261-020-02528-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/01/2023]
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Valdair Francisco Muglia
- 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.
| | | |
Collapse
|
2
|
Choi E, Adams F, Palagi S, Gengenbacher A, Schlager D, Müller PF, Gratzke C, Miernik A, Fischer P, Qiu T. A High-Fidelity Phantom for the Simulation and Quantitative Evaluation of Transurethral Resection of the Prostate. Ann Biomed Eng 2019; 48:437-446. [PMID: 31535249 PMCID: PMC6928096 DOI: 10.1007/s10439-019-02361-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/01/2019] [Accepted: 09/10/2019] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
Abstract
Transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) is a minimally invasive endoscopic procedure that requires experience and skill of the surgeon. To permit surgical training under realistic conditions we report a novel phantom of the human prostate that can be resected with TURP. The phantom mirrors the anatomy and haptic properties of the gland and permits quantitative evaluation of important surgical performance indicators. Mixtures of soft materials are engineered to mimic the physical properties of the human tissue, including the mechanical strength, the electrical and thermal conductivity, and the appearance under an endoscope. Electrocautery resection of the phantom closely resembles the procedure on human tissue. Ultrasound contrast agent was applied to the central zone, which was not detectable by the surgeon during the surgery but showed high contrast when imaged after the surgery, to serve as a label for the quantitative evaluation of the surgery. Quantitative criteria for performance assessment are established and evaluated by automated image analysis. We present the workflow of a surgical simulation on a prostate phantom followed by quantitative evaluation of the surgical performance. Surgery on the phantom is useful for medical training, and enables the development and testing of endoscopic and minimally invasive surgical instruments.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Eunjin Choi
- Micro Nano and Molecular Systems Lab, Max Planck Institute for Intelligent Systems, Heisenbergstr. 3, 70569, Stuttgart, Germany
| | - Fabian Adams
- Department of Urology, University Medical Center Freiburg, Hugstetterstr. 55, 79106, Freiburg, Germany
| | - Stefano Palagi
- Micro Nano and Molecular Systems Lab, Max Planck Institute for Intelligent Systems, Heisenbergstr. 3, 70569, Stuttgart, Germany
| | - Anina Gengenbacher
- Department of Urology, University Medical Center Freiburg, Hugstetterstr. 55, 79106, Freiburg, Germany
| | - Daniel Schlager
- Department of Urology, University Medical Center Freiburg, Hugstetterstr. 55, 79106, Freiburg, Germany
| | - Philippe-Fabian Müller
- Department of Urology, University Medical Center Freiburg, Hugstetterstr. 55, 79106, Freiburg, Germany
| | - Christian Gratzke
- Department of Urology, University Medical Center Freiburg, Hugstetterstr. 55, 79106, Freiburg, Germany
| | - Arkadiusz Miernik
- Department of Urology, University Medical Center Freiburg, Hugstetterstr. 55, 79106, Freiburg, Germany
| | - Peer Fischer
- Micro Nano and Molecular Systems Lab, Max Planck Institute for Intelligent Systems, Heisenbergstr. 3, 70569, Stuttgart, Germany.,Institute for Physical Chemistry, University of Stuttgart, Pfaffenwaldring 55, 70569, Stuttgart, Germany
| | - Tian Qiu
- Micro Nano and Molecular Systems Lab, Max Planck Institute for Intelligent Systems, Heisenbergstr. 3, 70569, Stuttgart, Germany. .,Institute for Physical Chemistry, University of Stuttgart, Pfaffenwaldring 55, 70569, Stuttgart, Germany.
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Chen H, Sutedjo J, Wang L, Yin X. Prostate Cancer Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy Imaging at 1.5 and 3.0 T. Technol Cancer Res Treat 2016; 15:625-31. [PMID: 27147454 DOI: 10.1177/1533034616650779] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/19/2016] [Accepted: 04/22/2016] [Indexed: 11/15/2022] Open
Abstract
Objective: We sought to assess the value of 1.5-T and 3-T magnetic resonance spectroscopy imaging in the diagnosis of prostate cancer by meta-analysis. Methods: Prospective studies were selected from MEDLINE, PubMed, Science Direct, OVID, and Springer between January 2004 and June 2014. Studies were reviewed based on Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies criteria. Any publication bias was assessed using Deek funnel plot asymmetry test. Pooled sensitivities, specificities, positive likelihood ratios, negative likelihood ratios, and 95% confidence intervals were calculated. Summary receiver–operating characteristic curves were used to assess the results. Results: A total of 17 articles were included in this study. The area under the curve values of 1.5-T magnetic resonance spectroscopy imaging with the use of an endorectal coil, 1.5-T magnetic resonance spectroscopy imaging without the use of an endorectal coil, and 3.0-T magnetic resonance spectroscopy imaging without the use of an endorectal coil were 0.90 ± 0.03, 0.75 ± 0.03, and 0.93 ± 0.02, respectively. Conclusion: Three-tesla magnetic resonance spectroscopy imaging without the use of an endorectal coil and 1.5-T magnetic resonance spectroscopy imaging with the use of an endorectal coil both had similar applied values compared to the lower applied value of 1.5-T magnetic resonance spectroscopy imaging without the use of an endorectal coil.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Huiyou Chen
- Department of Radiology, Nanjing First Hospital, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, People’s Republic of China
| | - Janesya Sutedjo
- Department of Radiology, Nanjing First Hospital, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, People’s Republic of China
| | - Liwei Wang
- Department of Radiology, Nanjing First Hospital, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, People’s Republic of China
| | - Xindao Yin
- Department of Radiology, Nanjing First Hospital, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, People’s Republic of China
| |
Collapse
|