PURPOSE: To compare peak enhancement (PE), determined from dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and the magnetic resonance (MR) directionally-averaged apparent diffusion coefficient (<D>) in glandular versus stromal prostatic tissues and, with this comparison, to infer if the hypothesis that gadolinium-DTPA (Gd-DTPA) does not enter healthy glands or ducts is plausible. MATERIALS AND METHODS: MRI, MR spectroscopic imaging, DCE MRI and MR diffusion were evaluated in 17 untreated subjects with suspected or proven prostate cancer. PE and <D> were compared in glandular-ductal tissues [normal peripheral zone and glandular benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH)] and stromal-low ductal tissues (central gland/mixed BPH and stromal BPH). RESULTS: The glandular-ductal tissues had lower PE [125+/-6.4 (% baseline)] and higher <D> [1.57+/-0.15 (s/10(-3) mm2)] than the stromal-low ductal tissues [PE=132+/-5.5 (% baseline) (P< .0008), <D>=1.18+/-0.20 (s/10(-3) mm2) (P< 1 x 10(-8))]. A statistical model based upon stepwise regression was generated and completely separated the tissue types: ductal Measure = 448+669 x<D> (s/10(-3) mm2)-10.7 x PE (1/%), R2=1.0 and P<8 x 10(-10). CONCLUSIONS: The very different MR results in the glandular-ductal versus stromal-low ductal tissues suggest that these tissues have different underlying structure. These results support the hypothesis that Gd-DTPA does not enter healthy prostatic glands or ducts. This may explain the higher PE and lower <D> that previously have been reported in prostate cancer versus healthy tissue.
PURPOSE: To compare peak enhancement (PE), determined from dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and the magnetic resonance (MR) directionally-averaged apparent diffusion coefficient (<D>) in glandular versus stromal prostatic tissues and, with this comparison, to infer if the hypothesis that gadolinium-DTPA (Gd-DTPA) does not enter healthy glands or ducts is plausible. MATERIALS AND METHODS: MRI, MR spectroscopic imaging, DCE MRI and MR diffusion were evaluated in 17 untreated subjects with suspected or proven prostate cancer. PE and <D> were compared in glandular-ductal tissues [normal peripheral zone and glandular benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH)] and stromal-low ductal tissues (central gland/mixed BPH and stromal BPH). RESULTS: The glandular-ductal tissues had lower PE [125+/-6.4 (% baseline)] and higher <D> [1.57+/-0.15 (s/10(-3) mm2)] than the stromal-low ductal tissues [PE=132+/-5.5 (% baseline) (P< .0008), <D>=1.18+/-0.20 (s/10(-3) mm2) (P< 1 x 10(-8))]. A statistical model based upon stepwise regression was generated and completely separated the tissue types: ductal Measure = 448+669 x<D> (s/10(-3) mm2)-10.7 x PE (1/%), R2=1.0 and P<8 x 10(-10). CONCLUSIONS: The very different MR results in the glandular-ductal versus stromal-low ductal tissues suggest that these tissues have different underlying structure. These results support the hypothesis that Gd-DTPA does not enter healthy prostatic glands or ducts. This may explain the higher PE and lower <D> that previously have been reported in prostate cancer versus healthy tissue.
Authors: Duan Xu; Roland G Henry; Pratik Mukherjee; Lucas Carvajal; Steven P Miller; A James Barkovich; Daniel B Vigneron Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2004-07 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: Jurgen J Fütterer; Tom W J Scheenen; Henkjan J Huisman; Dennis W J Klomp; Ferdi A van Dorsten; Christina A Hulsbergen-van de Kaa; J Alfred Witjes; Arend Heerschap; Jelle O Barentsz Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2004-11 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Marc R Engelbrecht; Henkjan J Huisman; Robert J F Laheij; Gerrit J Jager; Geert J L H van Leenders; Christina A Hulsbergen-Van De Kaa; Jean J M C H de la Rosette; Johan G Blickman; Jelle O Barentsz Journal: Radiology Date: 2003-08-27 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Paolo Preziosi; Antonio Orlacchio; Guido Di Giambattista; Paolo Di Renzi; Luigi Bortolotti; Alfredo Fabiano; Enrico Cruciani; Patrizio Pasqualetti Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2002-11-14 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Susan M Noworolski; Nancy J Fischbein; Michael J Kaplan; Ying Lu; Sarah J Nelson; Lucas Carvajal; Roland G Henry Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2003-04 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Piotr Kozlowski; Silvia D Chang; Ran Meng; Burkhard Mädler; Robert Bell; Edward C Jones; S Larry Goldenberg Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2010-04-13 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: Deukwoo Kwon; Isildinha M Reis; Adrian L Breto; Yohann Tschudi; Nicole Gautney; Olmo Zavala-Romero; Christopher Lopez; John C Ford; Sanoj Punnen; Alan Pollack; Radka Stoyanova Journal: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Date: 2018-09-06
Authors: Silvin Paul Knight; Jacinta Elizabeth Browne; James Frances Mary Meaney; Andrew John Fagan Journal: MAGMA Date: 2017-04-10 Impact factor: 2.310
Authors: Devkumar Mustafi; Sophie-Charlotte Gleber; Jesse Ward; Urszula Dougherty; Marta Zamora; Erica Markiewicz; David C Binder; Tatjana Antic; Stefan Vogt; Gregory S Karczmar; Aytekin Oto Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2015-09 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Borna K Barth; Pieter J L De Visschere; Alexander Cornelius; Carlos Nicolau; Hebert Alberto Vargas; Daniel Eberli; Olivio F Donati Journal: Radiology Date: 2017-03-27 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: David Bonekamp; Michael A Jacobs; Riham El-Khouli; Dan Stoianovici; Katarzyna J Macura Journal: Radiographics Date: 2011 May-Jun Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: Radka Stoyanova; Felix Chinea; Deukwoo Kwon; Isildinha M Reis; Yohann Tschudi; Nestor A Parra; Adrian L Breto; Kyle R Padgett; Alan Dal Pra; Matthew C Abramowitz; Oleksandr N Kryvenko; Sanoj Punnen; Alan Pollack Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2018-06-13 Impact factor: 7.038