Literature DB >> 18227542

Prostate cancer: identification with combined diffusion-weighted MR imaging and 3D 1H MR spectroscopic imaging--correlation with pathologic findings.

Yousef Mazaheri1, Amita Shukla-Dave, Hedvig Hricak, Samson W Fine, Jingbo Zhang, Gloria Inurrigarro, Chaya S Moskowitz, Nicole M Ishill, Victor E Reuter, Karim Touijer, Kristen L Zakian, Jason A Koutcher.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To retrospectively measure the mean apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) with diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and the mean metabolic ratio (MET) with three-dimensional (3D) hydrogen 1 ((1)H) MR spectroscopic imaging in regions of interest (ROIs) drawn over benign and malignant peripheral zone (PZ) prostatic tissue and to assess ADC, MET, and combined ADC and MET for identifying malignant ROIs, with whole-mount histopathologic examination as the reference standard.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The institutional review board approved this HIPAA-compliant retrospective study and issued a waiver of informed consent. From among 61 consecutive patients with prostate cancer, 38 men (median age, 61 years; range, 42-72 years) who underwent 1.5-T endorectal MR imaging before radical prostatectomy and who fulfilled all inclusion criteria of no prior hormonal or radiation treatment and at least one PZ lesion (volume, >0.1 cm(3)) at whole-mount pathologic examination were included. ADC maps were generated from diffusion-weighted MR imaging data, and MET maps of (choline plus polyamine plus creatine)/citrate were calculated from 3D (1)H MR spectroscopic imaging data. ROIs in the PZ identified by matching pathologic slides with T2-weighted images were overlaid on MET and ADC maps. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs) were used to evaluate accuracy.
RESULTS: The mean ADC +/- standard deviation, (1.39 +/- 0.23) x 10(-3) mm(2)/sec, and mean MET (0.92 +/- 0.32) for malignant ROIs differed significantly from the mean ADC, (1.69 +/- 0.24) x 10(-3) mm(2)/sec, and mean MET (0.73 +/- 0.18) for benign ROIs (P < .001 for both). In distinguishing malignant ROIs, combined ADC and MET (AUC = 0.85) performed significantly better than MET alone (AUC = 0.74; P = .005) and was also better than ADC alone (AUC = 0.81), although the difference was not statistically significant (P = .09).
CONCLUSION: The combination of ADC and MET performs significantly better than MET for differentiating between benign and malignant ROIs in the PZ. (c) RSNA, 2008.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18227542     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2462070368

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  67 in total

1.  Preoperative nomograms incorporating magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopy for prediction of insignificant prostate cancer.

Authors:  Amita Shukla-Dave; Hedvig Hricak; Oguz Akin; Changhong Yu; Kristen L Zakian; Kazuma Udo; Peter T Scardino; James Eastham; Michael W Kattan
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2011-09-20       Impact factor: 5.588

Review 2.  Diffusion weighted imaging in prostate cancer.

Authors:  Cher Heng Tan; Jihong Wang; Vikas Kundra
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2010-10-09       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 3.  Tracer kinetic modelling of tumour angiogenesis based on dynamic contrast-enhanced CT and MRI measurements.

Authors:  Gunnar Brix; Jürgen Griebel; Fabian Kiessling; Frederik Wenz
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 9.236

4.  Pathology: the lottery of conventional prostate biopsy.

Authors:  Gerald L Andriole
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 14.432

5.  The role of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in focal therapy for prostate cancer: recommendations from a consensus panel.

Authors:  Berrend G Muller; Jurgen J Fütterer; Rajan T Gupta; Aaron Katz; Alexander Kirkham; John Kurhanewicz; Judd W Moul; Peter A Pinto; Ardeshir R Rastinehad; Cary Robertson; Jean de la Rosette; Rafael Sanchez-Salas; J Stephen Jones; Osamu Ukimura; Sadhna Verma; Hessel Wijkstra; Michael Marberger
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2013-11-13       Impact factor: 5.588

6.  Improved spatial localization in magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging with two-dimensional PSF-Choice encoding.

Authors:  Shelley HuaLei Zhang; Stephan E Maier; Lawrence P Panych
Journal:  J Magn Reson       Date:  2018-03-03       Impact factor: 2.229

Review 7.  Combined magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance spectroscopy imaging in the diagnosis of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Martin Umbehr; Lucas M Bachmann; Ulrike Held; Thomas M Kessler; Tullio Sulser; Dominik Weishaupt; John Kurhanewicz; Johann Steurer
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2008-10-18       Impact factor: 20.096

8.  Influence of imaging and histological factors on prostate cancer detection and localisation on multiparametric MRI: a prospective study.

Authors:  Flavie Bratan; Emilie Niaf; Christelle Melodelima; Anne Laure Chesnais; Rémi Souchon; Florence Mège-Lechevallier; Marc Colombel; Olivier Rouvière
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2013-03-15       Impact factor: 5.315

9.  Relationship between T2 relaxation and apparent diffusion coefficient in malignant and non-malignant prostate regions and the effect of peripheral zone fractional volume.

Authors:  C J Simpkin; V A Morgan; S L Giles; S F Riches; C Parker; N M deSouza
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2013-02-20       Impact factor: 3.039

Review 10.  Diffusion-weighted imaging with apparent diffusion coefficient mapping and spectroscopy in prostate cancer.

Authors:  Michael A Jacobs; Ronald Ouwerkerk; Kyle Petrowski; Katarzyna J Macura
Journal:  Top Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2008-12
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.