PURPOSE: To retrospectively determine the accuracy of diffusion-weighted (DW) magnetic resonance (MR) imaging for identifying cancer in the prostate peripheral zone (PZ) and to assess the accuracy of tumor volume measurements made with T2-weighted imaging and combined T2-weighted and DW MR imaging by using surgical pathologic examination as the reference standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The institutional review board issued a waiver of informed consent for this HIPAA-compliant study. Forty-two patients underwent endorectal MR at 1.5 T before undergoing radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer and had at least one PZ tumor larger than 0.1 cm(3) at surgical pathologic examination. On T2-weighted images, an experienced radiologist outlined suspected PZ tumors. Two apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) cutoff values were identified by using the Youden index and published literature. Image cluster analysis was performed on voxels within the suspected tumor regions. Associations between volume measurements from imaging and from pathologic examination were assessed by using concordance correlation coefficients (CCCs). The sensitivity and specificity of ADCs for identifying malignant PZ voxels were calculated. RESULTS: In identifying malignant voxels, respective ADC cutoff values of 0.0014 and 0.0016 mm(2)/sec yielded sensitivity of 82% and 95% and specificity of 85% and 65%, respectively. Sixty PZ cancer lesions larger than 0.1 cm(3) were found at pathologic examination; 43 were detected by the radiologist. CCCs between imaging and pathologic tumor volume measurements were 0.36 for T2-weighted imaging, and 0.46 and 0.60 for combined T2-weighted and DW MR imaging with ADC cutoffs of 0.0014 and 0.0016 mm(2)/sec, respectively; the CCC of combined T2-weighted and DW MR imaging (ADC cutoff, 0.0016 mm(2)/sec) was significantly higher (P = .006) than that of T2-weighted imaging alone. CONCLUSION: Adding DW MR to T2-weighted imaging can significantly improve the accuracy of prostate PZ tumor volume measurement. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: http://radiology.rsnajnls.org/cgi/content/full/252/2/449/DC1.
PURPOSE: To retrospectively determine the accuracy of diffusion-weighted (DW) magnetic resonance (MR) imaging for identifying cancer in the prostate peripheral zone (PZ) and to assess the accuracy of tumor volume measurements made with T2-weighted imaging and combined T2-weighted and DW MR imaging by using surgical pathologic examination as the reference standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The institutional review board issued a waiver of informed consent for this HIPAA-compliant study. Forty-two patients underwent endorectal MR at 1.5 T before undergoing radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer and had at least one PZ tumor larger than 0.1 cm(3) at surgical pathologic examination. On T2-weighted images, an experienced radiologist outlined suspected PZ tumors. Two apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) cutoff values were identified by using the Youden index and published literature. Image cluster analysis was performed on voxels within the suspected tumor regions. Associations between volume measurements from imaging and from pathologic examination were assessed by using concordance correlation coefficients (CCCs). The sensitivity and specificity of ADCs for identifying malignant PZ voxels were calculated. RESULTS: In identifying malignant voxels, respective ADC cutoff values of 0.0014 and 0.0016 mm(2)/sec yielded sensitivity of 82% and 95% and specificity of 85% and 65%, respectively. Sixty PZ cancer lesions larger than 0.1 cm(3) were found at pathologic examination; 43 were detected by the radiologist. CCCs between imaging and pathologic tumor volume measurements were 0.36 for T2-weighted imaging, and 0.46 and 0.60 for combined T2-weighted and DW MR imaging with ADC cutoffs of 0.0014 and 0.0016 mm(2)/sec, respectively; the CCC of combined T2-weighted and DW MR imaging (ADC cutoff, 0.0016 mm(2)/sec) was significantly higher (P = .006) than that of T2-weighted imaging alone. CONCLUSION: Adding DW MR to T2-weighted imaging can significantly improve the accuracy of prostate PZ tumor volume measurement. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: http://radiology.rsnajnls.org/cgi/content/full/252/2/449/DC1.
Authors: Ian Chan; William Wells; Robert V Mulkern; Steven Haker; Jianqing Zhang; Kelly H Zou; Stephan E Maier; Clare M C Tempany Journal: Med Phys Date: 2003-09 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Fergus V Coakley; John Kurhanewicz; Ying Lu; Kirk D Jones; Mark G Swanson; Silvia D Chang; Peter R Carroll; Hedvig Hricak Journal: Radiology Date: 2002-04 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: N M deSouza; S F Riches; N J Vanas; V A Morgan; S A Ashley; C Fisher; G S Payne; C Parker Journal: Clin Radiol Date: 2008-04-18 Impact factor: 2.350
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
Authors: Baris Turkbey; Haresh Mani; Omer Aras; Ardeshir R Rastinehad; Vijay Shah; Marcelino Bernardo; Thomas Pohida; Dagane Daar; Compton Benjamin; Yolanda L McKinney; W Marston Linehan; Bradford J Wood; Maria J Merino; Peter L Choyke; Peter A Pinto Journal: J Urol Date: 2012-08-15 Impact factor: 7.450