Evaluation of the normal-to-diseased apparent diffusion coefficient ratio as an indicator of prostate cancer aggressiveness

BMC Medical Imaging

Mircea Buruian³  Gheorghita Iacob¹  Florin Elec²  Mihai Suciu²  Ciprian Lucan²  Cosmin Caraiani⁴  Diana Feier⁵  Silviu A Sfrangeu⁵  Andrei Lebovici⁵ 

[1] Department of Pathology, Clinical Institute of Urology and Kidney Transplant, “Iuliu Hatieganu” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Cluj-Napoca, Romania;Department of Urology, Clinical Institute of Urology and Kidney Transplant, “Iuliu Hatieganu” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Cluj-Napoca, Romania;Department of Radiology, County Emergency Hospital Mures, University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Targu-Mures, Romania;Department of Imaging, Regional Institute of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, “Iuliu Hatieganu” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Cluj-Napoca, Romania;Radiology Department, Emergency County Hospital, “Iuliu Hatieganu” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Cluj-Napoca, Romania

关键词: Neoplasm grading;    Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging;    Prostate cancer;   

Others  :  797795
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2342-14-15

 received in 2013-06-11, accepted in 2014-05-01,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

We tested the feasibility of a simple method for assessment of prostate cancer (PCa) aggressiveness using diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to calculate apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) ratios between prostate cancer and healthy prostatic tissue.

Methods

The requirement for institutional review board approval was waived. A set of 20 standardized core transperineal saturation biopsy specimens served as the reference standard for placement of regions of interest on ADC maps in tumorous and normal prostatic tissue of 22 men with PCa (median Gleason score: 7; range, 6–9). A total of 128 positive sectors were included for evaluation. Two diagnostic ratios were computed between tumor ADCs and normal sector ADCs: the ADC peripheral ratio (the ratio between tumor ADC and normal peripheral zone tissue, ADC-PR), and the ADC central ratio (the ratio between tumor ADC and normal central zone tissue, ADC-CR). The performance of the two ratios in detecting high-risk tumor foci (Gleason 8 and 9) was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC).

Results

Both ADC ratios presented significantly lower values in high-risk tumors (0.48 ± 0.13 for ADC-CR and 0.40 ± 0.09 for ADC-PR) compared with low-risk tumors (0.66 ± 0.17 for ADC-CR and 0.54 ± 0.09 for ADC-PR) (p < 0.001) and had better diagnostic performance (ADC-CR AUC = 0.77, sensitivity = 82.2%, specificity = 66.7% and ADC-PR AUC = 0.90, sensitivity = 93.7%, specificity = 80%) than stand-alone tumor ADCs (AUC of 0.75, sensitivity = 72.7%, specificity = 70.6%) for identifying high-risk lesions.

Conclusions

The ADC ratio as an intrapatient-normalized diagnostic tool may be better in detecting high-grade lesions compared with analysis based on tumor ADCs alone, and may reduce the rate of biopsies.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Lebovici et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Melnikow J, LeFevre M, Wilt TJ, Moyer VA: Counterpoint: Randomized trials provide the strongest evidence for clinical guidelines: The US Preventive Services Task Force and Prostate Cancer Screening. Med Care 2013, 51:301-303.
• [2]Bozzini G, Colin P, Nevoux P, Villers A, Mordon S, Betrouni N: Focal therapy of prostate cancer: energies and procedures. Urol Oncol 2013, 31:155-167.
• [3]Scardino PT, Weaver R, Hudson MA: Early detection of prostate cancer. Hum Pathol 1992, 23:211-222.
• [4]Schröder FH, Carter HB, Wolters T, van den Bergh RC, Gosselaar C, Bangma CH, Roobol MJ: Early detection of prostate cancer in 2007. Part 1: PSA and PSA kinetics. Eur Urol 2008, 53:468-477.
• [5]Gómez Veiga F, Ponce Reixa J, Barbagelata López A, Fernández Rosado E, Gonzaĺez MM: Current role of PSA and other markers in the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Arch Esp Urol 2006, 59:1069-1082.
• [6]Bonekamp D, Jacobs MA, El-Khouli R, Stoianovici D, Macura KJ: Advancements in MR imaging of the prostate: from diagnosis to interventions. Radiographics 2011, 31:677-703.
• [7]Verma S, Rajesh A, Morales H, Lemen L, Bills G, Delworth M, Gaitonde K, Ying J, Samartunga R, Lamba M: Assessment of aggressiveness of prostate cancer: correlation of apparent diffusion coefficient with histologic grade after radical prostatectomy. Am J Roentgenol 2011, 196:374-381.
• [8]Gleason DF, Mellinger GT: Prediction of prognosis for prostatic adenocarcinoma by combined histological grading and clinical staging. J Urol 1974, 111:58-64.
• [9]Bianco FJ Jr, Wood DP Jr, Cher ML, Powell IJ, Souza JW, Pontes JE: Ten-year survival after radical prostatectomy: specimen Gleason score is the predictor in organ-confined prostate cancer. Clin Prostate Cancer 2003, 1:242-247.
• [10]Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, Choyke P, Verma S, Villeirs G, Rouviere O, Logager V, Fütterer JJ, European Society of Urogenital Radiology: ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 2012, 22(4):746-757.
• [11]Aigner F, Pallwein L, Pelzer A, Schaefer G, Bartsch G, Nedden D, Frauscher F: Value of magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer diagnosis. World J Urol 2007, 25:351-359.
• [12]Chen YJ, Chu WC, Pu YS, Chueh SC, Shun CT, Tseng WY: Washout gradient in dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI is associated with tumor aggressiveness of prostate cancer. J Magn Reson Imaging 2012, 36:912-919.
• [13]Boonsirikamchai P, Choi S, Frank SJ, Ma J, Elsayes KM, Kaur H, Choi H: MR Imaging of Prostate Cancer in Radiation Oncology: What Radiologists Need to Know. Radiographics 2013, 33:741-761.
• [14]Woodfield CA, Tung GA, Grand DJ, Pezzullo JA, Machan JT, Renzulli JF 2nd: Diffusion-weighted MRI of peripheral zone prostate cancer: comparison of tumor apparent diffusion coefficient with Gleason score and percentage of tumor on core biopsy. Am J Roentgenol 2010, 194:W316-W322.
• [15]Dickinson L, Ahmed HU, Allen C, Barentsz JO, Carey B, Futterer JJ, Heijmink SW, Hoskin PJ, Kirkham A, Padhani AR, Persad R, Puech P, Punwani S, Sohaib AS, Tombal B, Villers A, van der Meulen J, Emberton M: Magnetic resonance imaging for the detection, localisation, and characterisation of prostate cancer: recommendations from a European consensus meeting. Eur Urol 2011, 59(4):477-494.
• [16]Litjens GJ, Hambrock T, Hulsbergen–van de Kaa C, Barentsz JO: Interpatient variation in normal peripheral zone apparent diffusion coefficient: effect on the prediction of prostate cancer aggressiveness. Radiology 2012, 265:260-266.
• [17]Hosseinzadeh K, Schwarz SD: Endorectal diffusion-weighted imaging in prostate cancer to differentiate malignant and benign peripheral zone tissue. J Magn Reson Imaging 2004, 20:654-661.
• [18]Yamamura J, Salomon G, Buchert R, Hohenstein A, Graessner J, Huland H, Graefen M, Adam G, Wedegaertner U: Magnetic resonance imaging of prostate cancer: diffusion-weighted imaging in comparison with sextant biopsy. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2011, 35:223-228.
• [19]Rinaldi D, Fiocchi F, Ligabue G, Bianchi G, Torricelli P: Role of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer evaluation. Radiol Med 2012, 117:1429-1440.
• [20]Nagayama M, Watanabe Y, Terai A, Araki T, Notohara K, Okumura A, Amoh Y, Ishimori T, Nakashita S, Dodo Y: Determination of the cutoff level of apparent diffusion coefficient values for detection of prostate cancer. Jpn J Radiol 2011, 29(7):488-494.
• [21]Oto A, Kayhan A, Jiang Y, Tretiakova M, Yang C, Antic T, Dahi F, Shalhav AL, Karczmar G, Stadler WM: Prostate cancer: differentiation of central gland cancer from benign prostatic hyperplasia by using diffusion-weighted and dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 2010, 257(3):715-723.
• [22]Somford DM, Hambrock T, Hulsbergen-van de Kaa CA, Fütterer JJ, van Oort IM, van Basten JP, Karthaus HF, Witjes JA, Barentsz JO: Initial experience with identifying high-grade prostate cancer using diffusion-weighted MR imaging (DWI) in patients with a Gleason score ≤ 3 + 3 = 6 upon schematic TRUS-guided biopsy: a radical prostatectomy correlated series. Invest Radiol 2012, 47:153-158.
• [23]Djavan B, Ravery V, Zlotta A, Dobronski P, Dobrovits M, Fakhari M, Seitz C, Susani M, Borkowski A, Boccon-Gibod L, Schulman CC, Marberger M: Prospective evaluation of prostate cancer detected on biopsies 1, 2, 3 and 4: when should we stop? J Urol 2001, 166(5):1679-1683.
• [24]Cookson MS, Fleshner NE, Soloway SM, Fair WR: Correlation between Gleason score of needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimen: accuracy and clinical implications. J Urol 1997, 157(2):559-562.
• [25]Nam RK, Saskin R, Lee Y, Liu Y, Law C, Klotz LH, Loblaw DA, Trachtenberg J, Stanimirovic A, Simor AE, Seth A, Urbach DR, Narod SA: Increasing hospital admission rates for urological complications after transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy. J Urol 2013, 189(1 Suppl):S12-S17. discussion S17-18