Skip to main content
bioRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search
New Results

Comparison of 3.0 T PAC versus 1.5 T ERC MRI in Detecting Local Prostate Carcinoma

Xin Ye, Udochukwu yoyo, Albert Lu, Jed Dixon, Heather Rojas, Samuel Randolph, Thomas Kelly
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/058123
Xin Ye
Loma Linda University Medical Center, Loma Linda, Ca.
Roles: MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Udochukwu yoyo
Loma Linda University Medical Center, Loma Linda, Ca.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Albert Lu
Loma Linda University Medical Center, Loma Linda, Ca.
Roles: MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jed Dixon
Loma Linda University Medical Center, Loma Linda, Ca.
Roles: MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Heather Rojas
Loma Linda University Medical Center, Loma Linda, Ca.
Roles: MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Samuel Randolph
Loma Linda University Medical Center, Loma Linda, Ca.
Roles: MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Thomas Kelly
Loma Linda University Medical Center, Loma Linda, Ca.
Roles: MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Preview PDF
Loading

Abstract

Increased utilization of prostate-specific antigen screening and prostate imaging has led to detection of smaller indolent tumors that traditional brachytherapy and prostectomy may be too aggressive for. New targeted techniques require greater locational accuracy of tumor detection to guide treatment. Prostate MRIs can be important for initial staging and for guiding targeted biopsies and treatments. We compared the accuracy of local staging of prostate cancer using 1.5 Tesla MRI with endorectal coil (ERC) versus 3 Tesla MRI with pelvic array coil (PAC) to the gold standard of trans-rectal US guided biopsies (TRUS). ERC is uncomfortable and has many imaging artifacts that may limit detection, so we hypothesize that 3 T MRI with PAC will have improved performance. 72 patients underwent prostate MRIs and TRUS prostate biopsies from 2008-2011 (33 were excluded due to prior radiation therapy, 24 patients underwent 1.5 T ERC and 15 underwent 3.0 T PAC.) 3.0 T PAC was trending towards greater sensitivity although we lack the statistical power for significance.

Copyright 
The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission.
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted June 09, 2016.
Download PDF
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about bioRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Comparison of 3.0 T PAC versus 1.5 T ERC MRI in Detecting Local Prostate Carcinoma
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from bioRxiv
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the bioRxiv website.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Comparison of 3.0 T PAC versus 1.5 T ERC MRI in Detecting Local Prostate Carcinoma
Xin Ye, Udochukwu yoyo, Albert Lu, Jed Dixon, Heather Rojas, Samuel Randolph, Thomas Kelly
bioRxiv 058123; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/058123
Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
Comparison of 3.0 T PAC versus 1.5 T ERC MRI in Detecting Local Prostate Carcinoma
Xin Ye, Udochukwu yoyo, Albert Lu, Jed Dixon, Heather Rojas, Samuel Randolph, Thomas Kelly
bioRxiv 058123; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/058123

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Subject Area

  • Cancer Biology
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Animal Behavior and Cognition (4662)
  • Biochemistry (10319)
  • Bioengineering (7647)
  • Bioinformatics (26263)
  • Biophysics (13485)
  • Cancer Biology (10653)
  • Cell Biology (15371)
  • Clinical Trials (138)
  • Developmental Biology (8471)
  • Ecology (12783)
  • Epidemiology (2067)
  • Evolutionary Biology (16803)
  • Genetics (11374)
  • Genomics (15436)
  • Immunology (10585)
  • Microbiology (25097)
  • Molecular Biology (10175)
  • Neuroscience (54260)
  • Paleontology (399)
  • Pathology (1663)
  • Pharmacology and Toxicology (2884)
  • Physiology (4329)
  • Plant Biology (9216)
  • Scientific Communication and Education (1583)
  • Synthetic Biology (2545)
  • Systems Biology (6764)
  • Zoology (1459)