The Utility of Diffusion-Weighted Imaging and Perfusion Magnetic Resonance Imaging Parameters for Detecting Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer

被引:6
作者
Cindil, Emetullah [1 ]
Oner, Yusuf [1 ]
Sendur, Halit Nahit [1 ]
Ozdemir, Hakan [1 ]
Gazel, Eymen [2 ]
Tunc, Lutfi [2 ]
Cerit, Mahi Nur [1 ]
机构
[1] Gazi Univ, Fac Med, Dept Radiol, Ankara, Turkey
[2] Gazi Univ, Fac Med, Dept Urol, Ankara, Turkey
来源
CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF RADIOLOGISTS JOURNAL-JOURNAL DE L ASSOCIATION CANADIENNE DES RADIOLOGISTES | 2019年 / 70卷 / 04期
关键词
Clinically significant prostate cancer; Diffusion-weighted imaging; Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI; Gleason score; Magnetic resonance imaging; CONTRAST-ENHANCED MRI; GLEASON SCORE; COEFFICIENT VALUE; AGGRESSIVENESS; BIOPSY; ADC; DIFFERENTIATION; DIAGNOSIS; VALUES; TISSUE;
D O I
10.1016/j.carj.2019.07.005
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
Introduction: To establish the diagnostic performance of the parameters obtained from dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) and diffusion-weighted imaging at 3T in discriminating between non-clinically significant prostate cancers (ncsPCa, Gleason score [GS] < 7) and clinically significant prostate cancers (csPCa, GS >= 7) in the peripheral zone. Materials and Methods: Twenty-six male patients with peripheral zone prostate cancer (PCa) who had undergone 3T multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan prior to biopsy were included in the study and evaluated retrospectively. The GS was obtained by both standard 12-core transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy and targeted MRI-US fusion biopsy and then confirmed by prostatectomy, if available. For each confirmed tumour focus, DCE-derived quantitative perfusion metrics (Ktrans, Kep, Ve, initial area under the curve [AUC]), the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) value, and normalized versions of quantitative metrics were measured and correlated with the GS. Results: Ktrans had the highest diagnostic accuracy value of 82% among the DCE-MRI parameters (AUC 0.90), and ADC had the strongest diagnostic accuracy value of 87% among the overall parameters (AUC 0.92). The combination of ADC and Ktrans have higher diagnostic performance with the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve being 0.98 (sensitivity 0.94; specificity 0.89; accuracy 0.92) compared to the individual evaluation of each parameter alone,The GS showed strong negative correlations with ADC (r = -0.72) and normalized ADC (r = -0.69) as well as a significant positive correlation with Ktrans (r = 0.69). Conclusion: The combination of Ktrans and ADC and their normalized versions may help differentiate between ncsPCa from csPCa in the peripheral zone.
引用
收藏
页码:441 / 451
页数:11
相关论文
共 36 条
  • [1] Transatlantic Consensus Group on active surveillance and focal therapy for prostate cancer
    Ahmed, Hashim U.
    Akin, Oguz
    Coleman, Jonathan A.
    Crane, Sarah
    Emberton, Mark
    Goldenberg, Larry
    Hricak, Hedvig
    Kattan, Mike W.
    Kurhanewicz, John
    Moore, Caroline M.
    Parker, Chris
    Polascik, Thomas J.
    Scardino, Peter
    van As, Nicholas
    Villers, Arnauld
    [J]. BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2012, 109 (11) : 1636 - 1647
  • [2] [Anonymous], MR PROST IM REP DAT
  • [3] Multiparametric MR Imaging for Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: A Validation Cohort Study with Transperineal Template Prostate Mapping as the Reference Standard
    Arumainayagam, Nimalan
    Ahmed, Hashim U.
    Moore, Caroline M.
    Freeman, Alex
    Allen, Clare
    Sohaib, S. Aslam
    Kirkham, Alex
    van der Meulen, Jan
    Emberton, Mark
    [J]. RADIOLOGY, 2013, 268 (03) : 761 - 769
  • [4] Advancements in MR Imaging of the Prostate: From Diagnosis to Interventions
    Bonekamp, David
    Jacobs, Michael A.
    El-Khouli, Riham
    Stoianovici, Dan
    Macura, Katarzyna J.
    [J]. RADIOGRAPHICS, 2011, 31 (03) : 677 - 703
  • [5] Washout gradient in dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI is associated with tumor aggressiveness of prostate cancer
    Chen, Yu-Jen
    Chu, Woei-Chyn
    Pu, Yeong-Shiau
    Chueh, Shih-Chieh
    Shun, Chia-Tung
    Tseng, Wen-Yih Isaac
    [J]. JOURNAL OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING, 2012, 36 (04) : 912 - 919
  • [6] Optimal cut-off value of perfusion parameters for diagnosing prostate cancer and for assessing aggressiveness associated with Gleason score
    Cho, Eunkyung
    Chung, Dong Jin
    Yeo, Dong Myung
    Sohn, Dongwan
    Son, Yohan
    Kim, Taejung
    Hahn, Sung-Tae
    [J]. CLINICAL IMAGING, 2015, 39 (05) : 834 - 840
  • [7] Comparing the Gleason prostate biopsy and Gleason prostatectomy grading system: The Lahey Clinic Medical Center experience and an international meta-analysis
    Cohen, Michael S.
    Hanley, Robert S.
    Kurteva, Teodora
    Ruthazer, Robin
    Silverman, Mark L.
    Sorcini, Andrea
    Hamawy, Karim
    Roth, Robert A.
    Tuerk, Ingolf
    Libertino, John A.
    [J]. EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2008, 54 (02) : 371 - 381
  • [8] Apparent Diffusion Coefficient Value and Ratio as Noninvasive Potential Biomarkers to Predict Prostate Cancer Grading: Comparison With Prostate Biopsy and Radical Prostatectomy Specimen
    De Cobelli, Francesco
    Ravelli, Silvia
    Esposito, Antonio
    Giganti, Francesco
    Gallina, Andrea
    Montorsi, Francesco
    Del Maschio, Alessandro
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2015, 204 (03) : 550 - 557
  • [9] An Update of the Gleason Grading System
    Epstein, Jonathan I.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2010, 183 (02) : 433 - 440
  • [10] Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging and pharmacokinetic models in prostate cancer
    Franiel, Tobias
    Hamm, Bernd
    Hricak, Hedvig
    [J]. EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2011, 21 (03) : 616 - 626