Clinical Radiology
Volume 65, Issue 6 , Pages 460-464 , June 2010

Effect of butylscopolamine on image quality in MRI of the prostate

  • M. Wagner

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiology, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany
    • Corresponding Author InformationGuarantor and correspondent: Department of Radiology, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, 10117 Berlin, Germany. Tel.: +49 30 450 627 359; fax: +49 30 450 527 911.
    • ,
  • M. Rief

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiology, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany
    • ,
  • J. Busch

      Affiliations

    • Department of Urology, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany
    • ,
  • C. Scheurig

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiology, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany
    • ,
  • M. Taupitz

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiology, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany
    • ,
  • B. Hamm

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiology, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany
    • ,
  • T. Franiel

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiology, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany

Received 8 October 2009 ,Revised 5 February 2010 ,Accepted 14 February 2010.

References 

  1. Hricak H, Choyke PL, Eberhardt SC, et al. Imaging prostate cancer: a multidisciplinary perspective. Radiology. 2007;243:28–53
  2. Hricak H, White S, Vigneron D, et al. Carcinoma of the prostate gland: MR imaging with pelvic phased-array coils versus integrated endorectal–pelvic phased-array coils. Radiology. 1994;193:703–709
  3. Franiel T, Ludemann L, Rudolph B, et al. Evaluation of normal prostate tissue, chronic prostatitis, and prostate cancer by quantitative perfusion analysis using a dynamic contrast-enhanced inversion-prepared dual-contrast gradient echo sequence. Invest Radiol. 2008;43:481–487
  4. Johnson W, Taylor MB, Carrington BM, et al. The value of hyoscine butylbromide in pelvic MRI. Clin Radiol. 2007;62:1087–1093
  5. Beyersdorff D, Taymoorian K, Knosel T, et al. MRI of prostate cancer at 1.5 and 3.0 T: comparison of image quality in tumor detection and staging. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005;185:1214–1220
  6. Cruz M, Tsuda K, Narumi Y, et al. Characterization of low-intensity lesions in the peripheral zone of prostate on pre-biopsy endorectal coil MR imaging. Eur Radiol. 2002;12:357–365
  7. Rorvik J, Halvorsen OJ, Albrektsen G, et al. MRI with an endorectal coil for staging of clinically localised prostate cancer prior to radical prostatectomy. Eur Radiol. 1999;9:29–34
  8. Schlemmer HP, Merkle J, Grobholz R, et al. Can pre-operative contrast-enhanced dynamic MR imaging for prostate cancer predict microvessel density in prostatectomy specimens?. Eur Radiol. 2004;14:309–317
  9. Rogalla P, Lembcke A, Ruckert JC, et al. Spasmolysis at CT colonography: butyl scopolamine versus glucagon. Radiology. 2005;236:184–188
  10. Skucas J. The use of antispasmodic drugs during barium enemas. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1994;162:1323–1325
  11. Wagner M, Klessen C, Rief M, et al. High-resolution T2-weighted abdominal magnetic resonance imaging using respiratory triggering: impact of butylscopolamine on image quality. Acta Radiol. 2008;49:376–382
  12. Heijmink SW, Futterer JJ, Hambrock T, et al. Prostate cancer: body-array versus endorectal coil MR imaging at 3 T—comparison of image quality, localization, and staging performance. Radiology. 2007;244:184–195
  13. Park BK, Kim B, Kim CK, et al. Comparison of phased-array 3.0-T and endorectal 1.5-T magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of local staging accuracy for prostate cancer. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2007;31:534–538
  14. Stark DD, Hendrick RE, Hahn PF, et al. Motion artefact reduction with fast spin-echo imaging. Radiology. 1987;164:183–191
  15. Wood ML, Runge VM, Henkelman RM. Overcoming motion in abdominal MR imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1988;150:513–522
  16. Akin O, Sala E, Moskowitz CS, et al. Transition zone prostate cancers: features, detection, localization, and staging at endorectal MR imaging. Radiology. 2006;239:784–792
  17. Bartolozzi C, Menchi I, Lencioni R, et al. Local staging of prostate carcinoma with endorectal coil MRI: correlation with whole-mount radical prostatectomy specimens. Eur Radiol. 1996;6:339–345
  18. Cheikh AB, Girouin N, Colombel M, et al. Evaluation of T2-weighted and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in localizing prostate cancer before repeat biopsy. Eur Radiol. 2009;19:770–778
  19. Coakley FV, Hricak H, Wefer AE, et al. Brachytherapy for prostate cancer: endorectal MR imaging of local treatment-related changes. Radiology. 2001;219:817–821
  20. Cornud F, Flam T, Chauveinc L, et al. Extraprostatic spread of clinically localized prostate cancer: factors predictive of pT3 tumor and of positive endorectal MR imaging examination results. Radiology. 2002;224:203–210
  21. Futterer JJ, Scheenen TW, Huisman HJ, et al. Initial experience of 3 Tesla endorectal coil magnetic resonance imaging and 1H-spectroscopic imaging of the prostate. Invest Radiol. 2004;39:671–680
  22. Ikonen S, Karkkainen P, Kivisaari L, et al. Endorectal magnetic resonance imaging of prostatic cancer: comparison between fat-suppressed T2-weighted fast spin echo and three-dimensional dual-echo, steady-state sequences. Eur Radiol. 2001;11:236–241
  23. Rouviere O, Raudrant A, Ecochard R, et al. Characterization of time-enhancement curves of benign and malignant prostate tissue at dynamic MR imaging. Eur Radiol. 2003;13:931–942
  24. Sella T, Schwartz LH, Swindle PW, et al. Suspected local recurrence after radical prostatectomy: endorectal coil MR imaging. Radiology. 2004;231:379–385
  25. Wetter A, Ajdukovic AN, Fliessbach K, et al. Staging of prostate cancer: value of the combined information of endorectal MRI, biopsy Gleason score, and preoperative PSA level. Rofo. 2006;178:385–390[In German]
  26. Dyde R, Chapman AH, Gale R, et al. Precautions to be taken by radiologists and radiographers when prescribing hyoscine-N-butylbromide. Clin Radiol. 2008;63:739–743

PII: S0009-9260(10)00106-6

doi: 10.1016/j.crad.2010.02.007

Clinical Radiology
Volume 65, Issue 6 , Pages 460-464 , June 2010

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution