Amide proton transfer (APT) magnetic resonance imaging of prostate cancer: comparison with Gleason scores

被引:52
|
作者
Takayama, Yukihisa [1 ]
Nishie, Akihiro [2 ]
Sugimoto, Masaaki [3 ,4 ]
Togao, Osamu [2 ]
Asayama, Yoshiki [2 ]
Ishigami, Kousei [2 ]
Ushijima, Yasuhiro [2 ]
Okamoto, Daisuke [2 ]
Fujita, Nobuhiro [2 ]
Yokomizo, Akira [4 ]
Keupp, Jochen [5 ]
Honda, Hiroshi [2 ]
机构
[1] Kyushu Univ, Grad Sch Med Sci, Dept Radiol Informat & Network, Higashi Ku, 3-1-1 Maidashi, Fukuoka 8128582, Japan
[2] Kyushu Univ, Grad Sch Med Sci, Dept Clin Radiol, Higashi Ku, 3-1-1 Maidashi, Fukuoka 8128582, Japan
[3] Kyushu Univ, Grad Sch Med Sci, Dept Anat Pathol, Higashi Ku, 3-1-1 Maidashi, Fukuoka 8128582, Japan
[4] Kyushu Univ, Grad Sch Med Sci, Dept Urol, Higashi Ku, 3-1-1 Maidashi, Fukuoka 8128582, Japan
[5] Philips Res, Roentgenstr 24-26, D-22335 Hamburg, Germany
关键词
Amide proton transfer; Apparent diffusion coefficient values; Prostate cancer; Gleason score; APPARENT DIFFUSION-COEFFICIENT; 3; T; RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY; HISTOGRAM ANALYSIS; HISTOLOGIC GRADE; AGGRESSIVENESS; VALUES; PARAMETERS; CARCINOMA; ADC;
D O I
10.1007/s10334-016-0537-4
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
To evaluate the utility of amide proton transfer (APT) imaging in estimating the Gleason score (GS) of prostate cancer (Pca). Sixty-six biopsy-proven cancers were categorized into four groups according to the GS: GS-6 (3 + 3); GS-7 (3 + 4/4 + 3); GS-8 (4 + 4) and GS-9 (4 + 5/5 + 4). APT signal intensities (APT SIs) and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values of each GS group were compared by one-way analysis of variance with Tukey's HSD post hoc test. The mean and standard deviation of the APT SIs (%) and ADC values (x10(-3) mm(2)/s) were as follows: GS-6, 2.48 +/- 0.59 and 1.16 +/- 0.26; GS-7, 5.17 +/- 0.66 and 0.92 +/- 0.18; GS-8, 2.56 +/- 0.85 and 0.86 +/- 0.17; GS-9, 1.96 +/- 0.75 and 0.85 +/- 0.18, respectively. The APT SI of the GS-7 group was highest, and there were significant differences between the GS-6 and GS-7 groups and the GS-7 and GS-9 groups (p < 0.05). The ADC value of the GS-6 group was significantly higher than each value of the GS-7, GS-8, and GS-9 groups (p < 0.05), but no significant differences were obtained among the GS-7, GS-8, and GS-9 groups. The mean APT SI in Pca with a GS of 7 was higher than that for the other GS groups.
引用
收藏
页码:671 / 679
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Amide proton transfer (APT) magnetic resonance imaging of prostate cancer: comparison with Gleason scores
    Yukihisa Takayama
    Akihiro Nishie
    Masaaki Sugimoto
    Osamu Togao
    Yoshiki Asayama
    Kousei Ishigami
    Yasuhiro Ushijima
    Daisuke Okamoto
    Nobuhiro Fujita
    Akira Yokomizo
    Jochen Keupp
    Hiroshi Honda
    Magnetic Resonance Materials in Physics, Biology and Medicine, 2016, 29 : 671 - 679
  • [2] Comparison and combination of amide proton transfer magnetic resonance imaging and the apparent diffusion coefficient in differentiating the grades of prostate cancer
    Qin, Xiaoyan
    Mu, Ronghua
    Zheng, Wei
    Li, Xin
    Liu, Fuzhen
    Zhuang, Zeyu
    Yang, Peng
    Zhu, Xiqi
    QUANTITATIVE IMAGING IN MEDICINE AND SURGERY, 2023, 13 (02) : 812 - 824
  • [3] Role of Endorectal Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopic Imaging in Two Different Gleason Scores in Prostate Cancer
    Nagarajan, Rajakumar
    Margolis, Daniel
    McClure, Tim
    Raman, Steve
    Thomas, M. Albert
    MEDICAL PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICE, 2011, 20 (05) : 444 - 448
  • [4] Correlation of gleason scores with magnetic resonance diffusion tensor imaging in peripheral zone prostate cancer
    Li, Liang
    Margolis, Daniel J. A.
    Deng, Ming
    Cai, Jie
    Yuan, Ling
    Feng, Zhaoyan
    Min, Xiangde
    Hu, Zhiquan
    Hu, Daoyu
    Liu, Jihong
    Wang, Liang
    JOURNAL OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING, 2015, 42 (02) : 460 - 467
  • [5] Amide proton transfer (APT) contrast for imaging of brain tumors
    Zhou, JY
    Lal, B
    Wilson, DA
    Laterra, J
    van Zijl, PCM
    MAGNETIC RESONANCE IN MEDICINE, 2003, 50 (06) : 1120 - 1126
  • [6] Comparison of Diffusion Kurtosis Imaging and Amide Proton Transfer Imaging in the Diagnosis and Risk Assessment of Prostate Cancer
    Yin, Huijia
    Wang, Dongdong
    Yan, Ruifang
    Jin, Xingxing
    Hu, Ying
    Zhai, Zhansheng
    Duan, Jinhui
    Zhang, Jian
    Wang, Kaiyu
    Han, Dongming
    FRONTIERS IN ONCOLOGY, 2021, 11
  • [7] A new approach for imaging brain tumors: Amide proton transfer (APT) imaging
    Blakeley, Jaishri O.
    Van Zijl, Peter
    Pomper, Martin G.
    Jones, Craig
    Laterra, John
    Zhou, Jinyuan
    NEUROLOGY, 2007, 68 (12) : A288 - A288
  • [8] Amide Proton Transfer MR Imaging of Prostate Cancer: A Preliminary Study
    Jia, Guang
    Abaza, Ronney
    Williams, JoAnna D.
    Zynger, Debra L.
    Zhou, Jinyuan
    Shah, Zarine K.
    Patel, Mitva
    Sammet, Steffen
    Wei, Lai
    Bahnson, Robert R.
    Knopp, Michael V.
    JOURNAL OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING, 2011, 33 (03) : 647 - 654
  • [9] Automatic classification of prostate cancer Gleason scores from multiparametric magnetic resonance images
    Fehr, Duc
    Veeraraghavan, Harini
    Wibmer, Andreas
    Gondo, Tatsuo
    Matsumoto, Kazuhiro
    Vargas, Herbert Alberto
    Sala, Evis
    Hricak, Hedvig
    Deasy, Joseph O.
    PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 2015, 112 (46) : E6265 - E6273
  • [10] Comparison Between Amide Proton Transfer Magnetic Resonance Imaging Using 3-Dimensional Acquisition and Diffusion-Weighted Imaging for Characterization of Prostate Cancer: A Preliminary Study
    Kido, Ayumu
    Tamada, Tsutomu
    Ueda, Yu
    Takeuchi, Mitsuru
    Kanki, Akihiko
    Yamamoto, Akira
    JOURNAL OF COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY, 2023, 47 (02) : 178 - 185