Literature DB >> 21177390

Is apparent diffusion coefficient associated with clinical risk scores for prostate cancers that are visible on 3-T MR images?

Baris Turkbey1, Vijay P Shah, Yuxi Pang, Marcelino Bernardo, Sheng Xu, Jochen Kruecker, Julia Locklin, Angelo A Baccala, Ardeshir R Rastinehad, Maria J Merino, Joanna H Shih, Bradford J Wood, Peter A Pinto, Peter L Choyke.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To investigate whether apparent diffusion coefficients (ADCs) derived from diffusion-weighted (DW) magnetic resonance (MR) imaging at 3 T correlate with the clinical risk of prostate cancer in patients with tumors that are visible on MR images, with MR imaging/transrectal ultrasonography (US) fusion-guided biopsy as a reference.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-eight consecutive patients (median age, 60 years; median serum prostate-specific antigen value, 6.3 ng/mL) who underwent DW imaging during 3-T MR imaging with an endorectal coil were included in this retrospective institutional review board-approved study, and informed consent was obtained from each patient. Patients underwent targeted MR imaging/transrectal US fusion-guided prostate biopsy. Mean ADCs of cancerous target tumors were correlated with Gleason and D'Amico clinical risk scores. The true risk group rate and predictive value of the mean ADC for classifying a tumor by its D'Amico clinical risk score was determined by using linear discriminant and receiver operating characteristic analyses.
RESULTS: A significant negative correlation was found between mean ADCs of tumors in the peripheral zone and their Gleason scores (P = .003; Spearman ρ = -0.60) and D'Amico clinical risk scores (P < .0001; Spearman ρ = -0.69). ADC was found to distinguish tumors in the peripheral zone with intermediate to high clinical risk from those with low clinical risk with a correct classification rate of 0.73.
CONCLUSION: There is a significant negative correlation between ADCs and Gleason and D'Amico clinical risk scores. ADCs may therefore be useful in predicting the aggressiveness of prostate cancer. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: http://radiology.rsna.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1148/radiol.10100667/-/DC1. © RSNA, 2010

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 21177390      PMCID: PMC3029887          DOI: 10.1148/radiol.10100667

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


  38 in total

1.  Comparison of phased-array 3.0-T and endorectal 1.5-T magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of local staging accuracy for prostate cancer.

Authors:  Byung Kwan Park; Bohyun Kim; Chan Kyo Kim; Hyun Moo Lee; Ghee Young Kwon
Journal:  J Comput Assist Tomogr       Date:  2007 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 1.826

2.  Repeatability of echo-planar-based diffusion measurements of the human prostate at 3 T.

Authors:  Peter Gibbs; Martin D Pickles; Lindsay W Turnbull
Journal:  Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2007-05-11       Impact factor: 2.546

3.  Prostate cancer localization with dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging and proton MR spectroscopic imaging.

Authors:  Jurgen J Fütterer; Stijn W T P J Heijmink; Tom W J Scheenen; Jeroen Veltman; Henkjan J Huisman; Pieter Vos; Christina A Hulsbergen-Van de Kaa; J Alfred Witjes; Paul F M Krabbe; Arend Heerschap; Jelle O Barentsz
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2006-09-11       Impact factor: 11.105

4.  Prostate cancer: prediction of extracapsular extension with endorectal MR imaging and three-dimensional proton MR spectroscopic imaging.

Authors:  K K Yu; J Scheidler; H Hricak; D B Vigneron; C J Zaloudek; R G Males; S J Nelson; P R Carroll; J Kurhanewicz
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1999-11       Impact factor: 11.105

5.  Preoperative nomogram predicting the 10-year probability of prostate cancer recurrence after radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Andrew J Stephenson; Peter T Scardino; James A Eastham; Fernando J Bianco; Zohar A Dotan; Paul A Fearn; Michael W Kattan
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2006-05-17       Impact factor: 13.506

6.  Management and survival of screen-detected prostate cancer patients who might have been suitable for active surveillance.

Authors:  Stijn Roemeling; Monique J Roobol; Renske Postma; Claartje Gosselaar; Theo H van der Kwast; Chris H Bangma; Fritz H Schröder
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2006-05-03       Impact factor: 20.096

7.  Dynamic contrast enhanced, pelvic phased array magnetic resonance imaging of localized prostate cancer for predicting tumor volume: correlation with radical prostatectomy findings.

Authors:  Arnauld Villers; Philippe Puech; Damien Mouton; Xavier Leroy; Charles Ballereau; Laurent Lemaitre
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 7.450

8.  Prostate cancer: body-array versus endorectal coil MR imaging at 3 T--comparison of image quality, localization, and staging performance.

Authors:  Stijn W T P J Heijmink; Jurgen J Fütterer; Thomas Hambrock; Satoru Takahashi; Tom W J Scheenen; Henkjan J Huisman; Christina A Hulsbergen-Van de Kaa; Ben C Knipscheer; Lambertus A L M Kiemeney; J Alfred Witjes; Jelle O Barentsz
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2007-05-10       Impact factor: 11.105

9.  Peripheral zone prostate cancer: accuracy of different interpretative approaches with MR and MR spectroscopic imaging.

Authors:  Antonio C Westphalen; Fergus V Coakley; Aliya Qayyum; Mark Swanson; Jeffry P Simko; Ying Lu; Shoujun Zhao; Peter R Carroll; Benjamin M Yeh; John Kurhanewicz
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2007-11-16       Impact factor: 11.105

10.  Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI of prostate cancer at 3 T: a study of pharmacokinetic parameters.

Authors:  Iclal Ocak; Marcelino Bernardo; Greg Metzger; Tristan Barrett; Peter Pinto; Paul S Albert; Peter L Choyke
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2007-10       Impact factor: 3.959

View more
  131 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

2.  Transatlantic Consensus Group on active surveillance and focal therapy for prostate cancer.

Authors:  Hashim U Ahmed; Oguz Akin; Jonathan A Coleman; Sarah Crane; Mark Emberton; Larry Goldenberg; Hedvig Hricak; Mike W Kattan; John Kurhanewicz; Caroline M Moore; Chris Parker; Thomas J Polascik; Peter Scardino; Nicholas van As; Arnauld Villers
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2011-11-11       Impact factor: 5.588

3.  Prostate cancer: predicting tumor aggressiveness using DWI-guided biopsy.

Authors:  Chan Kyo Kim; Satoru Takahashi
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2011-10-25       Impact factor: 14.432

4.  Updates in advanced diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging techniques in the evaluation of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Hebert Alberto Vargas; Edward Malnor Lawrence; Yousef Mazaheri; Evis Sala
Journal:  World J Radiol       Date:  2015-08-28

5.  Can Apparent Diffusion Coefficient Values Assist PI-RADS Version 2 DWI Scoring? A Correlation Study Using the PI-RADSv2 and International Society of Urological Pathology Systems.

Authors:  Sonia Gaur; Stephanie Harmon; Lauren Rosenblum; Matthew D Greer; Sherif Mehralivand; Mehmet Coskun; Maria J Merino; Bradford J Wood; Joanna H Shih; Peter A Pinto; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2018-05-07       Impact factor: 3.959

Review 6.  Anatomic and Molecular Imaging in Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Eric T Miller; Amirali Salmasi; Robert E Reiter
Journal:  Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med       Date:  2018-03-01       Impact factor: 6.915

7.  Intravoxel Incoherent Motion (IVIM) Diffusion Weighted Imaging (DWI) in the Periferic Prostate Cancer Detection and Stratification.

Authors:  Filippo Pesapane; Francesca Patella; Enrico Maria Fumarola; Silvia Panella; Anna Maria Ierardi; Giovanni Guido Pompili; Giuseppe Franceschelli; Salvatore Alessio Angileri; Alberto Magenta Biasina; Gianpaolo Carrafiello
Journal:  Med Oncol       Date:  2017-01-31       Impact factor: 3.064

8.  Validation of the Dominant Sequence Paradigm and Role of Dynamic Contrast-enhanced Imaging in PI-RADS Version 2.

Authors:  Matthew D Greer; Joanna H Shih; Nathan Lay; Tristan Barrett; Leonardo Kayat Bittencourt; Samuel Borofsky; Ismail M Kabakus; Yan Mee Law; Jamie Marko; Haytham Shebel; Francesca V Mertan; Maria J Merino; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto; Ronald M Summers; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2017-07-19       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 9.  Prostate biopsy for the interventional radiologist.

Authors:  Cheng William Hong; Hayet Amalou; Sheng Xu; Baris Turkbey; Pingkun Yan; Jochen Kruecker; Peter A Pinto; Peter L Choyke; Bradford J Wood
Journal:  J Vasc Interv Radiol       Date:  2014-02-26       Impact factor: 3.464

10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.