Clinical utility of the normalized apparent diffusion coefficient for preoperative evaluation of the aggressiveness of prostate cancer

被引:24
作者
Itatani, Ryo [1 ,2 ]
Namimoto, Tomohiro [1 ]
Yoshimura, Akira [2 ]
Katahira, Kazuhiro [2 ]
Noda, Seiichiro [2 ]
Toyonari, Nobuyuki [2 ]
Kitani, Kosuke [3 ]
Hamada, Yasuyuki [3 ]
Kitaoka, Mitsuhiko [4 ]
Yamashita, Yasuyuki [1 ]
机构
[1] Kumamoto Univ, Dept Diagnost Radiol, Grad Sch Med Sci, Kumamoto 8620965, Japan
[2] Kumamoto City Hosp, Dept Radiol, Kumamoto 8620965, Japan
[3] Kumamoto City Hosp, Dept Urol, Kumamoto 8620965, Japan
[4] Kumamoto City Hosp, Dept Pathol, Kumamoto 8620965, Japan
关键词
Prostate cancer; Gleason score; Normalized ADC; 3; T; GLEASON GRADE; VALUES; MAP;
D O I
10.1007/s11604-014-0367-0
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
Normalization of the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) may overcome ADC variability attributable to different patient and/or technical factors. The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of ADC and the normalized ADC (nADC) for differentiating between prostate cancer with a Gleason score (GS) = 6 and GS > 6 and to identify an optimum reference for nADC calculations. Our study population comprised 58 patients who underwent diffusion-weighted MRI followed by radical prostatectomy. The nADC of the prostate cancer was calculated as ADC (cancer)/ADC (reference) by using the obturator internus muscle, urine in the bladder, and a 20-ml saline bottle placed on the groin as references. We performed receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis to identify the optimum reference for nADC calculations. To differentiate between GS = 6 and GS > 6 prostate cancer, the area under the ROC curve of the nADC obtained with a saline bottle as reference was best (0.85) and significantly better than the area under the ADC ROC curve (0.71). nADC is superior to ADC for estimating the aggressiveness of prostate cancer. It is a noninvasive technique that aids in the selection of appropriate treatments.
引用
收藏
页码:685 / 691
页数:7
相关论文
共 34 条
[1]   ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012 [J].
Barentsz, Jelle O. ;
Richenberg, Jonathan ;
Clements, Richard ;
Choyke, Peter ;
Verma, Sadhna ;
Villeirs, Geert ;
Rouviere, Olivier ;
Logager, Vibeke ;
Futterer, Jurgen J. .
EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2012, 22 (04) :746-757
[2]  
Barral M, 2013, Diagn Interv Imaging, V94, P619, DOI 10.1016/j.diii.2013.02.011
[3]  
Bilgili Y, 2004, AM J NEURORADIOL, V25, P108
[4]   Short- and Midterm Reproducibility of Apparent Diffusion Coefficient Measurements at 3.0-T Diffusion-weighted Imaging of the Abdomen [J].
Braithwaite, Adam C. ;
Dale, Brian M. ;
Boll, Daniel T. ;
Merkle, Elmar M. .
RADIOLOGY, 2009, 250 (02) :459-465
[5]  
DeLano MC, 2000, AM J NEURORADIOL, V21, P1830
[6]   Diagnosis of Liver Fibrosis and Cirrhosis With Diffusion-Weighted Imaging: Value of Normalized Apparent Diffusion Coefficient Using the Spleen as Reference Organ [J].
Do, Richard K. G. ;
Chandanara, Hersh ;
Felker, Ely ;
Hajdu, Cristina H. ;
Babb, James S. ;
Kim, Danny ;
Taouli, Bachir .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2010, 195 (03) :671-676
[7]   Combined T2-weighted and diffusion-weighted MRI for localization of prostate cancer [J].
Haider, Masoom A. ;
van der Kwast, Theodorus H. ;
Tanguay, Jeff ;
Evans, Andrew J. ;
Hashmi, Ali-Tahir ;
Lockwood, Gina ;
Trachtenberg, John .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2007, 189 (02) :323-328
[8]   Relationship between Apparent Diffusion Coefficients at 3.0-T MR Imaging and Gleason Grade in Peripheral Zone Prostate Cancer [J].
Hambrock, Thomas ;
Somford, Diederik M. ;
Huisman, Henkjan J. ;
van Oort, Inge M. ;
Witjes, J. Alfred ;
Hulsbergen-van de Kaa, Christina A. ;
Scheenen, Thomas ;
Barentsz, Jelle O. .
RADIOLOGY, 2011, 259 (02) :453-461
[9]  
Hoehn-Berlage M, 1999, NMR BIOMED, V12, P45, DOI 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1492(199902)12:1<45::AID-NBM545>3.0.CO
[10]  
2-6