Prostate MRI: Evaluating Tumor Volume and Apparent Diffusion Coefficient as Surrogate Biomarkers for Predicting Tumor Gleason Score

被引:66
|
作者
Donati, Olivio F. [1 ,3 ]
Afaq, Asim [4 ]
Vargas, Hebert Alberto [1 ]
Mazaheri, Yousef [2 ]
Zheng, Junting [2 ]
Moskowitz, Chaya S. [2 ]
Hricak, Hedvig [1 ]
Akin, Oguz [1 ]
机构
[1] Mem Sloan Kettering Canc Ctr, Dept Radiol, New York, NY 10065 USA
[2] Mem Sloan Kettering Canc Ctr, New York, NY 10065 USA
[3] Univ Zurich Hosp, Inst Diagnost & Intervent Radiol, CH-8091 Zurich, Switzerland
[4] Univ Coll London Hosp, Biomed Res Ctr, Natl Inst Hlth Res, Inst Nucl Med, London, England
基金
瑞士国家科学基金会;
关键词
ACTIVE SURVEILLANCE; CANCER CORRELATION; FIELD-STRENGTH; 3; T; AGGRESSIVENESS; GRADE; ADENOCARCINOMA; DIAGNOSIS; SPREAD;
D O I
10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-14-0044
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Purpose: To investigate whether tumor volume derived from apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) maps (Volume(ADC)) and tumor mean ADC value (ADC(mean)) are independent predictors of prostate tumor Gleason score (GS). Experimental Design: Tumor volume and GS were recorded from whole-mount histopathology for 131 men (median age, 60 years) who underwent endorectal diffusion-weighted MRI for local staging of prostate cancer before prostatectomy. Volume(ADC) and ADC(mean) were derived from ADC maps and correlated with histopathologic tumor volume and GS. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to evaluate prediction of tumor aggressiveness. Areas under receiver-operating characteristics curves (AUC) were calculated to evaluate the performance of Volume(ADC) and ADC(mean) in discriminating tumors of GS 6 and GS >= 7. Results: Histopathology identified 116 tumor foci >0.5 mL. Volume(ADC) correlated significantly with histopathologic tumor volume (rho = 0.683). The correlation increased with increasing GS (rho = 0.453 for GS 6 tumors; rho = 0.643 for GS 7 tumors; rho = 0.980 for GS >= 8 tumors). Both Volume(ADC) (rho = 0.286) and ADC(mean) (rho = -0.309) correlated with GS. At univariate analysis, both Volume(ADC) (P = 0.0325) and ADC(mean) (P = 0.0033) could differentiate GS 6 from GS >= 7 tumor foci. However, at multivariate analysis, only ADC(mean) (P = 0.0156) was a significant predictor of tumor aggressiveness (i. e., GS 6 vs. GS >= 7). For differentiating GS 6 from GS >= 7 tumors, AUCs were 0.644 and 0.704 for Volume(ADC) and ADC(mean), respectively, and 0.749 for both parameters combined. Conclusion: In patients with prostate cancer, ADC(mean) is an independent predictor of tumor aggressiveness, but Volume(ADC) is not. The latter parameter adds little to the ADC(mean) in predicting tumor GS. (C)2014 AACR.
引用
收藏
页码:3705 / 3711
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Metabolomics of Gleason score in prostate tumor tissue and serum
    Penney, Kathryn
    Tyekucheva, Svitlana
    Loda, Massimo
    CANCER RESEARCH, 2016, 76
  • [22] EFFECT OF TUMOR VOLUME AND PRESENCE OF GLEASON PATTERN 3 IN PROSTATE CANCER PATIENTS WITH GLEASON SCORE 8 ON PROSTATE NEEDLE BIOPSY
    Ginsburg, Kevin
    Silverman, Michael
    Livingstone, Joan
    Smith, Daryn
    Heilbrun, Lance
    Cher, Michael
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2018, 199 (04): : E705 - E705
  • [23] Comparison Between Gleason Score and Apparent Diffusion Coefficient Obtained from Diffusion-Weighted Imaging of Prostate Cancer Patients
    Caivano, Rocchina
    Rabasco, Paola
    Lotumolo, Antonella
    Cirillo, Patrizia
    D'Antuono, Felice
    Zandolino, Alexis
    Villonio, Antonio
    Macarini, Luca
    Salvatore, Marco
    Cammarota, Aldo
    CANCER INVESTIGATION, 2013, 31 (09) : 625 - 629
  • [24] Ratio of Tumor to Normal Prostate Tissue Apparent Diffusion Coefficient as a Method for Quantifying DWI of the Prostate
    Barrett, Tristan
    Priest, Andrew N.
    Lawrence, Edward M.
    Goldman, Debra A.
    Warren, Anne Y.
    Gnanapragasam, Vincent J.
    Sala, Evis
    Gallagher, Ferdia A.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2015, 205 (06) : W585 - W593
  • [25] The value of apparent diffusion coefficient values in predicting Gleason grading of low to intermediate-risk prostate cancer
    Yan, Xu
    Ma, Ke
    Zhu, Li
    Pan, Yiqi
    Wang, Yuting
    Shi, Jiong
    Mai, Xiaoli
    INSIGHTS INTO IMAGING, 2024, 15 (01):
  • [26] Metabolomics of Prostate Cancer Gleason Score in Tumor Tissue and Serum
    Penney, Kathryn L.
    Tyekucheva, Svitlana
    Rosenthal, Jacob
    El Fandy, Habiba
    Carelli, Ryan
    Borgstein, Stephanie
    Zadra, Giorgia
    Fanelli, Giuseppe Nicolo
    Stefanizzi, Lavinia
    Giunchi, Francesca
    Pomerantz, Mark
    Peisch, Samuel
    Coulson, Hannah
    Lis, Rosina
    Kibel, Adam S.
    Fiorentino, Michelangelo
    Umeton, Renato
    Loda, Massimo
    MOLECULAR CANCER RESEARCH, 2021, 19 (03) : 475 - 484
  • [27] Whole-Tumor Quantitative Apparent Diffusion Coefficient Histogram and Texture Analysis to Predict Gleason Score Upgrading in Intermediate-Risk 3+4=7 Prostate Cancer
    Rozenberg, Radu
    Thornhill, Rebecca E.
    Flood, Trevor A.
    Hakim, Shaheed W.
    Lim, Christopher
    Schieda, Nicola
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2016, 206 (04) : 775 - 782
  • [28] Apparent Diffusion Coefficient and Lesion Volume to Detect Prostate Cancer
    Scialpi, Michele
    Martorana, Eugenio
    Scalera, Giovanni Battista
    Scialpi, Pietro
    Di Blasi, Aldo
    RADIOLOGY, 2023, 307 (03)
  • [29] APPARENT DIFFUSION COEFFICIENT IN PEDIATRIC BRAIN TUMOR GRADING
    Youssef, A.
    Mahfouz, Y.
    Refaat, A.
    Zaky, I.
    Shabna, A.
    Mahmoud, E.
    El Kiki, H.
    Metwally, M.
    Abdelkhalek, A.
    Chi, T. L.
    PEDIATRIC BLOOD & CANCER, 2013, 60 : 139 - 139
  • [30] What is the Best Method For Evaluating Gleason Score and Tumor Extent for MRI/US Fusion Targeted Biopsy?
    Gordetsky, Jennifer
    Schultz, Luciana
    Porter, Kristin
    Nix, Jeffrey
    Rais-Bahrami, Soroush
    MODERN PATHOLOGY, 2018, 31 : 346 - 346