Prostate MRI: Diffusion-weighted Imaging at 1.5T Correlates Better with Prostatectomy Gleason Grades Than TRUS-guided Biopsies in Peripheral Zone Tumours

Overview

Journal Eur Radiol

Specialty Radiology

Date 2011 Sep 14

PMID 21913058

Citations 39

Authors

Leonardo Kayat Bittencourt

Jelle O Barentsz

Luiz Carlos Duarte de Miranda

Emerson Leandro Gasparetto

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objectives: To investigate the usefulness of Apparent Diffusion Coefficients (ADC) in predicting prostatectomy Gleason Grades (pGG) and Scores (GS), compared with ultrasound-guided biopsy Gleason Grades (bGG).

Methods: Twenty-four patients with biopsy-proven prostate cancer were included in the study. Diffusion-weighted images were obtained using 1.5-T MR with a pelvic phased-array coil. Median ADC values (b0,500,1000 s/mm²) were measured at the most suspicious areas in the peripheral zone. The relationship between ADC values and pGG or GS was assessed using Pearson's coefficient. The relationship between bGG and pGG or GS was also evaluated. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was performed to assess the performance of each method on a qualitative level.

Results: A significant negative correlation was found between mean ADCs of suspicious lesions and their pGG (r = -0.55; p < 0.01) and GS (r = -0.63; p < 0.01). No significant correlation was found between bGG and pGG (r = 0.042; p > 0.05) or GS (r = 0.048; p > 0.05). ROC analysis revealed a discriminatory performance of AUC = 0.82 for ADC and AUC = 0.46 for bGG in discerning low-grade from intermediate/high-grade lesions.

Conclusions: The ADC values of suspicious areas in the peripheral zone perform better than bGG in the correlation with prostate cancer aggressiveness, although with considerable intra-subject heterogeneity.

Key Points: • Prostate cancer aggressiveness is probably underestimated and undersampled by routine ultrasound-guided biopsies. • Diffusion-weighted MR images show good linear correlation with prostate cancer aggressiveness. • DWI information may be used to improve risk-assessment in prostate cancer.

Citing Articles

Rectal gas-induced susceptibility artefacts on prostate diffusion-weighted MRI with epi read-out at 3.0 T: does a preparatory micro-enema improve image quality?.

Plodeck V, Radosa C, Hubner H, Baldus C, Borkowetz A, Thomas C Abdom Radiol (NY). 2020; 45(12):4244-4251.

PMID: 32500236 PMC: 8260527. DOI: 10.1007/s00261-020-02600-9.

Discrimination between clinical significant and insignificant prostate cancer with apparent diffusion coefficient - a systematic review and meta analysis.

Meyer H, Wienke A, Surov A BMC Cancer. 2020; 20(1):482.

PMID: 32460795 PMC: 7254689. DOI: 10.1186/s12885-020-06942-x.

Predicting clinically significant prostate cancer from quantitative image features including compressed sensing radial MRI of prostate perfusion using machine learning: comparison with PI-RADS v2 assessment scores.

Winkel D, Breit H, Shi B, Boll D, Seifert H, Wetterauer C Quant Imaging Med Surg. 2020; 10(4):808-823.

PMID: 32355645 PMC: 7188610. DOI: 10.21037/qims.2020.03.08.

Targeted Biopsy Validation of Peripheral Zone Prostate Cancer Characterization With Magnetic Resonance Fingerprinting and Diffusion Mapping.

Panda A, OConnor G, Lo W, Jiang Y, Margevicius S, Schluchter M Invest Radiol. 2019; 54(8):485-493.

PMID: 30985480 PMC: 6602844. DOI: 10.1097/RLI.0000000000000569.

Objective risk stratification of prostate cancer using machine learning and radiomics applied to multiparametric magnetic resonance images.

Varghese B, Chen F, Hwang D, Palmer S, De Castro Abreu A, Ukimura O Sci Rep. 2019; 9(1):1570.

PMID: 30733585 PMC: 6367324. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-38381-x.

References

Epstein J, Srigley J, Grignon D, Humphrey P . Recommendations for the reporting of prostate carcinoma. Hum Pathol. 2007; 38(9):1305-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.humpath.2007.05.015. View

Itou Y, Nakanishi K, Narumi Y, Nishizawa Y, Tsukuma H . Clinical utility of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values in patients with prostate cancer: can ADC values contribute to assess the aggressiveness of prostate cancer?. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2010; 33(1):167-72. DOI: 10.1002/jmri.22317. View

Gleason D, Mellinger G . Prediction of prognosis for prostatic adenocarcinoma by combined histological grading and clinical staging. 1974. J Urol. 2002; 167(2 Pt 2):953-8; discussion 959. View

Sato C, Naganawa S, Nakamura T, Kumada H, Miura S, Takizawa O . Differentiation of noncancerous tissue and cancer lesions by apparent diffusion coefficient values in transition and peripheral zones of the prostate. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2005; 21(3):258-62. DOI: 10.1002/jmri.20251. View

DAmico A, Whittington R, Malkowicz S, Schultz D, Blank K, Broderick G . Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA. 1998; 280(11):969-74. DOI: 10.1001/jama.280.11.969. View

Cohen M, Hanley R, Kurteva T, Ruthazer R, Silverman M, Sorcini A . Comparing the Gleason prostate biopsy and Gleason prostatectomy grading system: the Lahey Clinic Medical Center experience and an international meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2008; 54(2):371-81. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2008.03.049. View

Guo Y, Cai Y, Cai Z, An N, Ma L, Mahankali S . Differentiation of clinically benign and malignant breast lesions using diffusion-weighted imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2002; 16(2):172-8. DOI: 10.1002/jmri.10140. View

Chenevert T, Sundgren P, Ross B . Diffusion imaging: insight to cell status and cytoarchitecture. Neuroimaging Clin N Am. 2006; 16(4):619-32, viii-ix. DOI: 10.1016/j.nic.2006.06.005. View

Xu S, Kruecker J, Turkbey B, Glossop N, Singh A, Choyke P . Real-time MRI-TRUS fusion for guidance of targeted prostate biopsies. Comput Aided Surg. 2008; 13(5):255-64. PMC: 2664902. DOI: 10.3109/10929080802364645. View

10.

Egevad L, Granfors T, Karlberg L, Bergh A, Stattin P . Percent Gleason grade 4/5 as prognostic factor in prostate cancer diagnosed at transurethral resection. J Urol. 2002; 168(2):509-13. View

11.

Pereira F, Martins G, Figueiredo E, Domingues M, Domingues R, Barbosa da Fonseca L . Assessment of breast lesions with diffusion-weighted MRI: comparing the use of different b values. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009; 193(4):1030-5. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.09.2522. View

12.

Norberg M, Egevad L, Holmberg L, Sparen P, Norlen B, Busch C . The sextant protocol for ultrasound-guided core biopsies of the prostate underestimates the presence of cancer. Urology. 1997; 50(4):562-6. DOI: 10.1016/S0090-4295(97)00306-3. View

13.

Turkbey B, Shah V, Pang Y, Bernardo M, Xu S, Kruecker J . Is apparent diffusion coefficient associated with clinical risk scores for prostate cancers that are visible on 3-T MR images?. Radiology. 2010; 258(2):488-95. PMC: 3029887. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.10100667. View

14.

Stav K, Judith S, Merald H, Leibovici D, Lindner A, Zisman A . Does prostate biopsy Gleason score accurately express the biologic features of prostate cancer?. Urol Oncol. 2007; 25(5):383-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2006.12.013. View

15.

deSouza N, Riches S, Vanas N, Morgan V, Ashley S, Fisher C . Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging: a potential non-invasive marker of tumour aggressiveness in localized prostate cancer. Clin Radiol. 2008; 63(7):774-82. DOI: 10.1016/j.crad.2008.02.001. View

16.

Padhani A, Liu G, Koh D, Chenevert T, Thoeny H, Takahara T . Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging as a cancer biomarker: consensus and recommendations. Neoplasia. 2009; 11(2):102-25. PMC: 2631136. DOI: 10.1593/neo.81328. View

17.

Xu J, Humphrey P, Kibel A, Snyder A, Narra V, Ackerman J . Magnetic resonance diffusion characteristics of histologically defined prostate cancer in humans. Magn Reson Med. 2009; 61(4):842-50. PMC: 3080096. DOI: 10.1002/mrm.21896. View

18.

Woodfield C, Tung G, Grand D, Pezzullo J, Machan J, Renzulli 2nd J . Diffusion-weighted MRI of peripheral zone prostate cancer: comparison of tumor apparent diffusion coefficient with Gleason score and percentage of tumor on core biopsy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010; 194(4):W316-22. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.09.2651. View

19.

Wang L, Hricak H, Kattan M, Chen H, Kuroiwa K, Eisenberg H . Prediction of seminal vesicle invasion in prostate cancer: incremental value of adding endorectal MR imaging to the Kattan nomogram. Radiology. 2006; 242(1):182-8. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2421051254. View

20.

Verma S, Rajesh A, Morales H, Lemen L, Bills G, Delworth M . Assessment of aggressiveness of prostate cancer: correlation of apparent diffusion coefficient with histologic grade after radical prostatectomy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011; 196(2):374-81. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.10.4441. View