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
  • [21] Characterization of Lung Cancer by Amide Proton Transfer (APT) Imaging: An In-Vivo Study in an Orthotopic Mouse Model
    Togao, Osamu
    Kessinger, Chase W.
    Huang, Gang
    Soesbe, Todd C.
    Sagiyama, Koji
    Dimitrov, Ivan
    Sherry, A. Dean
    Gao, Jinming
    Takahashi, Masaya
    PLOS ONE, 2013, 8 (10):
  • [22] Amide proton transfer (APT) imaging of breast cancers and its correlation with biological status
    Kamitani, Takeshi
    Sagiyama, Koji
    Yamasaki, Yuzo
    Hino, Takuya
    Wada, Tatsuhiro
    Kubo, Makoto
    Akiyoshi, Sayuri
    Yamamoto, Hidetaka
    Yabuuchi, Hidetake
    Ishigami, Kousei
    CLINICAL IMAGING, 2023, 96 : 38 - 43
  • [23] Simplified quantitative description of amide proton transfer (APT) imaging during acute ischemia
    Sun, Phillip Zhe
    Zhou, Jinyuan
    Huang, Judy
    van Zijl, Peter
    MAGNETIC RESONANCE IN MEDICINE, 2007, 57 (02) : 405 - 410
  • [24] Amide proton transfer (APT) imaging of parotid tumors: Differentiation of malignant and benign tumors
    Kamitani, Takeshi
    Sagiyama, Koji
    Togao, Osamu
    Yamasaki, Yuzo
    Hida, Tomoyuki
    Matsuura, Yuko
    Murayama, Yuriko
    Yasumatsu, Ryuji
    Yamamoto, Hidetaka
    Yabuuchi, Hidetake
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2020, 129
  • [25] Comparison of Magnetic Resonance Imaging Targeted and Standard Prostate Biopsies in Cancer Detection, Gleason Grading and Tumor Volume Estimation
    Kong, Max
    Deng, Fang-Ming
    Melamed, Jonathan
    Rosenkrantz, Andrew
    Taneja, Samir
    Zhou, Ming
    MODERN PATHOLOGY, 2015, 28 : 235A - 235A
  • [26] Comparison of Magnetic Resonance Imaging Targeted and Standard Prostate Biopsies in Cancer Detection, Gleason Grading and Tumor Volume Estimation
    Kong, Max
    Deng, Fang-Ming
    Melamed, Jonathan
    Rosenkrantz, Andrew
    Taneja, Samir
    Zhou, Ming
    LABORATORY INVESTIGATION, 2015, 95 : 235A - 235A
  • [27] Correlation of diffusion tensor imaging parameters and Gleason scores of prostate cancer
    Tian, Weizhong
    Zhang, Ji
    Tian, Fangzheng
    Shen, Junkang
    Niu, Tianli
    He, Guohua
    Yu, Hong
    EXPERIMENTAL AND THERAPEUTIC MEDICINE, 2018, 15 (01) : 351 - 356
  • [28] Tumor pH and Protein Concentration Contribute to the Signal of Amide Proton Transfer Magnetic Resonance Imaging
    Ray, Kevin J.
    Simard, Manon A.
    Larkin, James R.
    Coates, James
    Kinchesh, Paul
    Smart, Sean C.
    Higgins, Geoff S.
    Chappell, Michael A.
    Sibson, Nicola R.
    CANCER RESEARCH, 2019, 79 (07) : 1343 - 1352
  • [29] Assessment of Chemoradiotherapy Response in Glioma with Magnetic Resonance Amide Proton Transfer Imaging in a Rodent Model
    Zhao, Jing
    Chen, Yinsheng
    Zhao, Yiying
    Yang, Shasha
    Chen, Zhongping
    Wu, Yin
    2017 39TH ANNUAL INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF THE IEEE ENGINEERING IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY SOCIETY (EMBC), 2017, : 541 - 543
  • [30] Amide proton transfer-weighted magnetic resonance imaging for the differentiation of parotid gland tumors
    Wang, Yihua
    Wang, Lijun
    Huang, Haitao
    Ma, Juntao
    Lin, Liangjie
    Liu, Lin
    Song, Qingwei
    Liu, Ailian
    FRONTIERS IN ONCOLOGY, 2023, 13