1 714

Cited 55 times in

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

DC Field Value Language
dc.contributor.author임범진-
dc.contributor.author정병하-
dc.contributor.author최경화-
dc.contributor.author김주희-
dc.contributor.author박경기-
dc.contributor.author이승환-
dc.date.accessioned2015-04-23T17:24:49Z-
dc.date.available2015-04-23T17:24:49Z-
dc.date.issued2010-
dc.identifier.issn0724-4983-
dc.identifier.urihttps://ir.ymlib.yonsei.ac.kr/handle/22282913/102416-
dc.description.abstractPURPOSE: 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-
dc.description.statementOfResponsibilityopen-
dc.format.extent667~672-
dc.relation.isPartOfWORLD JOURNAL OF UROLOGY-
dc.rightsCC BY-NC-ND 2.0 KR-
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/kr/-
dc.subject.MESHAdult-
dc.subject.MESHAged-
dc.subject.MESHBiopsy-
dc.subject.MESHHumans-
dc.subject.MESHMagnetic Resonance Imaging/adverse effects-
dc.subject.MESHMagnetic Resonance Imaging/methods*-
dc.subject.MESHMale-
dc.subject.MESHMiddle Aged-
dc.subject.MESHNeoplasm Staging/adverse effects-
dc.subject.MESHNeoplasm Staging/methods*-
dc.subject.MESHPredictive Value of Tests-
dc.subject.MESHProstate-Specific Antigen/blood-
dc.subject.MESHProstatic Neoplasms/blood-
dc.subject.MESHProstatic Neoplasms/pathology*-
dc.subject.MESHRetrospective Studies-
dc.subject.MESHSensitivity and Specificity-
dc.titleIs endorectal coil necessary for the staging of clinically localized prostate cancer? Comparison of non-endorectal versus endorectal MR imaging-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.contributor.collegeCollege of Medicine (의과대학)-
dc.contributor.departmentDept. of Urology (비뇨기과학)-
dc.contributor.googleauthorSeung Hwan Lee-
dc.contributor.googleauthorKyung Kgi Park-
dc.contributor.googleauthorKyung Hwa Choi-
dc.contributor.googleauthorBeom Jin Lim-
dc.contributor.googleauthorJoo Hee Kim-
dc.contributor.googleauthorSeung Wook Lee-
dc.contributor.googleauthorByung Ha Chung-
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/s00345-010-0579-6-
dc.admin.authorfalse-
dc.admin.mappingfalse-
dc.contributor.localIdA02938-
dc.contributor.localIdA00951-
dc.contributor.localIdA03363-
dc.contributor.localIdA03607-
dc.contributor.localIdA04036-
dc.contributor.localIdA01419-
dc.relation.journalcodeJ02805-
dc.identifier.eissn1433-8726-
dc.identifier.pmid20623288-
dc.identifier.urlhttp://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00345-010-0579-6-
dc.subject.keywordProstate cancer-
dc.subject.keywordEndorectal MR imaging-
dc.subject.keywordA phased-array coil MR imaging-
dc.subject.keywordComplication-
dc.contributor.alternativeNameLim, Beom Jin-
dc.contributor.alternativeNameChung, Byung Ha-
dc.contributor.alternativeNameChoi, Kyung Hwa-
dc.contributor.alternativeNameKim, Joo Hee-
dc.contributor.alternativeNamePark, Kyung Kgi-
dc.contributor.alternativeNameLee, Seung Hwan-
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthorLee, Seung Hwan-
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthorKim, Joo Hee-
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthorLim, Beom Jin-
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthorChung, Byung Ha-
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthorChoi, Kyung Hwa-
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthorPark, Kyung Kgi-
dc.citation.volume28-
dc.citation.number6-
dc.citation.startPage667-
dc.citation.endPage672-
dc.identifier.bibliographicCitationWORLD JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, Vol.28(6) : 667-672, 2010-
dc.identifier.rimsid57314-
dc.type.rimsART-
Appears in Collections:
1. College of Medicine (의과대학) > Dept. of Pathology (병리학교실) > 1. Journal Papers
1. College of Medicine (의과대학) > Dept. of Radiology (영상의학교실) > 1. Journal Papers
1. College of Medicine (의과대학) > Dept. of Urology (비뇨의학교실) > 1. Journal Papers

qrcode

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.