» Articles » PMID: 26900904

Assessment of Prostate Cancer Aggressiveness by Use of the Combination of Quantitative DWI and Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced MRI

Overview
Specialties Oncology
Radiology
Date 2016 Feb 23
PMID 26900904
Citations 32
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objective: The objective of this study was to investigate whether the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) value from DWI and the forward volume transfer constant (K(trans)) value from dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI independently predict prostate cancer aggressiveness, and to determine whether the combination of both parameters performs better than either parameter alone in assessing tumor aggressiveness before treatment.

Materials And Methods: This retrospective study included 158 men with histopathologically confirmed prostate cancer who underwent 3-T MRI before undergoing prostatectomy in 2011. Whole-mount step-section pathologic maps identified 195 prostate cancer foci that were 0.5 mL or larger; these foci were then volumetrically assessed to calculate the per-tumor ADC and K(trans) values. Associations between MRI and histopathologic parameters were assessed using Spearman correlation coefficients, univariate and multivariable logistic regression, and AUCs.

Results: The median ADC and K(trans) values showed moderate correlation only for tumors for which the Gleason score (GS) was 4 + 4 or higher (ρ = 0.547; p = 0.042). The tumor ADC value was statistically significantly associated with all dichotomized GSs (p < 0.005), including a GS of 3 + 3 versus a GS of 3 + 4 or higher (AUC, 0.693; p = 0.001). The tumor K(trans) value differed statistically significantly only between tumors with a GS of 3 + 3 and those with a primary Gleason grade of 4 (p ≤ 0.015), and it made a statistically significant contribution only in differentiating tumors with a GS of 4 + 3 or higher (AUC, 0.711; p < 0.001) and those with a GS of 4 + 4 or higher (AUC, 0.788; p < 0.001) from lower-grade tumors. Combining ADC and K(trans) values improved diagnostic performance in characterizing tumors with a GS of 4 + 3 or higher and those with a GS of 4 + 4 or higher (AUC, 0.739 and 0.856, respectively; p < 0.01).

Conclusion: Although the ADC value helped to differentiate between all GSs, the K(trans) value was only a benefit in characterizing more aggressive tumors. Combining these parameters improves their performance in identifying patients with aggressive tumors who may require radical treatment.

Citing Articles

Optimizing Multiparametric MRI Protocols for Prostate Cancer Detection: A Comprehensive Assessment Aligned with PI-RADS Guidelines.

Jamshidi M, Fatemi A, Karami A, Ghanavati S, Dhruba D, Negarestanian M Health Sci Rep. 2024; 7(11):e70172.

PMID: 39564352 PMC: 11574457. DOI: 10.1002/hsr2.70172.


Role of Apparent Diffusion Coefficient Value and Apparent Diffusion Coefficient Ratio as Prognostic Factors for Prostate Cancer Aggressiveness.

Buss A, Radzina M, Liepa M, Birkenfelds E, Saule L, Miculis K Diagnostics (Basel). 2024; 14(21).

PMID: 39518405 PMC: 11545188. DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics14212438.


Quantitative magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer: A review of current technology.

Dhiman A, Kumar V, Das C World J Radiol. 2024; 16(10):497-511.

PMID: 39494137 PMC: 11525833. DOI: 10.4329/wjr.v16.i10.497.


Investigating MRI-Associated Biological Aspects of Racial Disparities in Prostate Cancer for African American and White Men.

Zabihollahy F, Miao Q, Naim S, Sonni I, Vangala S, Kim H J Magn Reson Imaging. 2024; 61(1):121-131.

PMID: 38751322 PMC: 11564416. DOI: 10.1002/jmri.29397.


Comparison of Early Contrast Enhancement Models in Ultrafast Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Prostate Cancer.

Clemente A, Selva G, Berks M, Morrone F, Morrone A, Aulisa M Diagnostics (Basel). 2024; 14(9).

PMID: 38732285 PMC: 11083228. DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics14090870.


References
1.
Barentsz J, Richenberg J, Clements R, Choyke P, Verma S, Villeirs G . ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol. 2012; 22(4):746-57. PMC: 3297750. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-011-2377-y. View

2.
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

3.
Donati O, Afaq A, Vargas H, Mazaheri Y, Zheng J, Moskowitz C . Prostate MRI: evaluating tumor volume and apparent diffusion coefficient as surrogate biomarkers for predicting tumor Gleason score. Clin Cancer Res. 2014; 20(14):3705-11. DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-14-0044. View

4.
Pepe M, Kerr K, Longton G, Wang Z . Testing for improvement in prediction model performance. Stat Med. 2013; 32(9):1467-82. PMC: 3625503. DOI: 10.1002/sim.5727. View

5.
Ahmed H, Akin O, Coleman J, Crane S, Emberton M, Goldenberg L . Transatlantic Consensus Group on active surveillance and focal therapy for prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2011; 109(11):1636-47. PMC: 3682487. DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10633.x. View