Radiology
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hricak, H.
Right arrow Articles by Carroll, P. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Hricak, H.
Right arrow Articles by Carroll, P. R.

Radiology, Vol 193, 703-709, Copyright © 1994 by Radiological Society of North America

ARTICLES

Carcinoma of the prostate gland: MR imaging with pelvic phased-array coils versus integrated endorectal--pelvic phased-array coils

H Hricak, S White, D Vigneron, J Kurhanewicz, A Kosco, D Levin, J Weiss, P Narayan and PR Carroll
Department of Radiology, UCSF/Mt Zion Cancer Center 94143-0628.

PURPOSE: To compare the performance of pelvic phased-array (PPA) coils and integrated endorectal PPA coils in evaluation of local extent of prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy-one men underwent magnetic resonance (MR) imaging within 3 weeks of radical prostatectomy. MR findings of tumor, extracapsular extension, seminal vesicle invasion, nodal involvement, and stage were compared with step- sectioned (3-4-mm intervals) whole-mounted pathologic specimens. Prospective consensus versus single-reader interpretation (kappa statistics) and PPA versus integrated endorectal PPA coils (McNemar test) were compared, and a rating scale of 1-6 was developed for analysis of receiver operating characteristics. Statistical significance was calculated at delta = .05. RESULTS: Comparison between consensus and single-reader image interpretation showed positive but poor agreement (kappa = .38) and no statistical significance. Staging accuracy was better (difference approached significance) for integrated endorectal PPA coils (77%) than for PPA coils (68%). CONCLUSION: The integrated endorectal PPA coil is better for evaluation of local prostatic cancer than is the PPA coil.




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
RADIOLOGY RADIOGRAPHICS RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE
Copyright © 1994 by the Radiological Society of North America.