Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35296357›Full record

ArticleCancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society2022

Prostate MRI using a rigid two-channel phased-array endorectal coil: comparison with phased array coil acquisition at 3 T.

Sara Lewis, Aasrith Ganti, Pamela Argiriadi, Ally Rosen, Stefanie Hectors, Sahar Semaan, Christopher Song, Steve Peti, Maxwell Segall, Kezia George and 8 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 33% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

18 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Sara LewisDepartment of Diagnostic, Molecular and Interventional Radiology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, Box 1234, New York, NY, 10029, USA. sara.lewis@mountsinai.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4713-6453
Aasrith GantiIn Vivo Corporation, Philips Healthcare, Gainesville, FL, USA.
Pamela ArgiriadiDepartment of Diagnostic, Molecular and Interventional Radiology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, Box 1234, New York, NY, 10029, USA.
Ally RosenDepartment of Diagnostic, Molecular and Interventional Radiology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, Box 1234, New York, NY, 10029, USA.
Stefanie HectorsDepartment of Diagnostic, Molecular and Interventional Radiology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, Box 1234, New York, NY, 10029, USA.
Sahar SemaanDepartment of Diagnostic, Molecular and Interventional Radiology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, Box 1234, New York, NY, 10029, USA.
Christopher SongDepartment of Diagnostic, Molecular and Interventional Radiology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, Box 1234, New York, NY, 10029, USA.
Steve PetiDepartment of Diagnostic, Molecular and Interventional Radiology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, Box 1234, New York, NY, 10029, USA.
Maxwell SegallBioMedical Engineering and Imaging Institute, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.
Kezia GeorgeDepartment of Diagnostic, Molecular and Interventional Radiology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, Box 1234, New York, NY, 10029, USA.
Vaneela JaikaranDepartment of Diagnostic, Molecular and Interventional Radiology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, Box 1234, New York, NY, 10029, USA.
Sebastian VillaDepartment of Diagnostic, Molecular and Interventional Radiology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, Box 1234, New York, NY, 10029, USA.
David KestenbaumDepartment of Diagnostic, Molecular and Interventional Radiology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, Box 1234, New York, NY, 10029, USA.
Nicholas VoutsinasDepartment of Diagnostic, Molecular and Interventional Radiology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, Box 1234, New York, NY, 10029, USA.
John DoucetteEnvironmental Medicine & Public Health, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.
Ashutosh TewariDepartment of Urology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.
Ardeshir R RastinehadDepartment of Urology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.
Bachir TaouliDepartment of Diagnostic, Molecular and Interventional Radiology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, Box 1234, New York, NY, 10029, USA.
Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai · USLenox Hill Hospital · USPhilips (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo compare image quality, lesion detection and patient comfort of 3T prostate MRI using a combined rigid two-channel phased-array endorectal coil and an external phased-array coil (ERC-PAC) compared to external PAC acquisition in the same patients.

methodsThirty three men (mean age 65.3y) with suspected (n = 15) or biopsy-proven prostate cancer (PCa, n = 18) were prospectively enrolled in this exploratory study. 3T prostate MRI including T2-weighted imaging (T2WI) and diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) was performed using an ERC-PAC versus PAC alone, in random order. Image quality, lesion detection and characterization (biparametric PI-RADSv2.1) were evaluated by 2 independent observers. Estimated signal-to-noise ratio (eSNR) was measured in identified lesions and the peripheral zone (PZ). Patient comfort was assessed using a questionnaire. Data were compared between sequences and acquisitions. Inter/intra-observer agreement for PI-RADS scores was evaluated.

resultsTwenty four prostate lesions (22 PCa) were identified in 20/33 men. Superior image quality was found for ERC-PAC compared to PAC for T2WI for one observer (Obs.1, p < 0.03) and high b-value DWI for both observers (p < 0.05). The sensitivity of PI-RADS for lesion detection for ERC-PAC and PAC acquisitions was 79.2 and 75% for Obs.1, and 79.1 and 66.7%, for Obs.2, without significant difference for each observer (McNemar p-values ≥0.08). Inter-/intra-observer agreement for PI-RADS scores was moderate-to-substantial (kappa = 0.52-0.84). Higher eSNR was observed for lesions and PZ for T2WI and PZ for DWI using ERC-PAC (p < 0.013). Most patients (21/33) reported discomfort at ERC insertion.

conclusionDespite improved image quality and eSNR using the rigid ERC-PAC combination, no significant improvement in lesion detection was observed, therefore not supporting the routine use of ERC for prostate MRI.

Indexed as

ProstateProstatic NeoplasmsAgedDiffusion Magnetic Resonance ImagingHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleSignal-To-Noise RatioEndorectal coilImage qualityMagnetic resonance imagingProstate cancerSignal to noise ratio (SNR)

Identifiers

PMID35296357
PMCPMC8925156
OpenAlexW4220758213

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.