Literature DB >> 21436085

Diffusion-weighted endorectal MR imaging at 3 T for prostate cancer: tumor detection and assessment of aggressiveness.

Hebert Alberto Vargas1, Oguz Akin, Tobias Franiel, Yousef Mazaheri, Junting Zheng, Chaya Moskowitz, Kazuma Udo, James Eastham, Hedvig Hricak.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To assess the incremental value of diffusion-weighted (DW) magnetic resonance (MR) imaging over T2-weighted MR imaging at 3 T for prostate cancer detection and to investigate the use of the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) to characterize tumor aggressiveness, with whole-mount step-section pathologic analysis as the reference standard.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Internal Review Board approved this HIPAA-compliant retrospective study and waived informed consent. Fifty-one patients with prostate cancer (median age, 58 years; range, 46-74 years) underwent T2-weighted MR imaging and DW MR imaging (b values: 0 and 700 sec/mm(2) [n = 20] or 0 and 1000 sec/mm(2) [n = 31]) followed by prostatectomy. The prostate was divided into 12 regions; two readers provided a score for each region according to their level of suspicion for the presence of cancer on a five-point scale, first using T2-weighted MR imaging alone and then using T2-weighted MR imaging and the ADC map in conjunction. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUCs) were estimated to evaluate performance. Generalized estimating equations were used to test the ADC difference between benign and malignant prostate regions and the association between ADCs and tumor Gleason scores.
RESULTS: For tumor detection, the AUCs for readers 1 and 2 were 0.79 and 0.76, respectively, for T2-weighted MR imaging and 0.79 and 0.78, respectively, for T2-weighted MR imaging plus the ADC map. Mean ADCs for both cancerous and healthy prostatic regions were lower when DW MR imaging was performed with a b value of 1000 sec/mm(2) rather than 700 sec/mm(2). Regardless of the b value used, there was a significant difference in the mean ADC between malignant and benign prostate regions. A lower mean ADC was significantly associated with a higher tumor Gleason score (mean ADCs of [1.21, 1.10, 0.87, and 0.69] × 10(-3) mm(2)/sec were associated with Gleason score of 3 + 3, 3 + 4, 4 + 3, and 8 or higher, respectively; P = .017).
CONCLUSION: Combined DW and T2-weighted MR imaging had similar performance to T2-weighted MR imaging alone for tumor detection; however, DW MR imaging provided additional quantitative information that significantly correlated with prostate cancer aggressiveness. RSNA, 2011

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21436085      PMCID: PMC3099046          DOI: 10.1148/radiol.11102066

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


  39 in total

1.  Comparisons of predictive values of binary medical diagnostic tests for paired designs.

Authors:  W Leisenring; T Alonzo; M S Pepe
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2000-06       Impact factor: 2.571

Review 2.  Diffusion-weighted MRI at 3 T for the evaluation of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Chan Kyo Kim; Byung Kwan Park; Bohyun Kim
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 3.959

3.  Diffusion imaging of the prostate at 3.0 tesla.

Authors:  Peter Gibbs; Martin D Pickles; Lindsay W Turnbull
Journal:  Invest Radiol       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 6.016

4.  Diffusion-weighted imaging of normal and malignant prostate tissue at 3.0T.

Authors:  Martin D Pickles; Peter Gibbs; Muthyala Sreenivas; Lindsay W Turnbull
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 4.813

5.  Nonparametric analysis of clustered ROC curve data.

Authors:  N A Obuchowski
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1997-06       Impact factor: 2.571

6.  Differentiation of noncancerous tissue and cancer lesions by apparent diffusion coefficient values in transition and peripheral zones of the prostate.

Authors:  Chiho Sato; Shinji Naganawa; Tatsuya Nakamura; Hisashi Kumada; Shunichi Miura; Osamu Takizawa; Takeo Ishigaki
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 4.813

7.  Cancer statistics, 2010.

Authors:  Ahmedin Jemal; Rebecca Siegel; Jiaquan Xu; Elizabeth Ward
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2010-07-07       Impact factor: 508.702

8.  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

9.  Correlation of proton MR spectroscopic imaging with gleason score based on step-section pathologic analysis after radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Kristen L Zakian; Kanishka Sircar; Hedvig Hricak; Hui-Ni Chen; Amita Shukla-Dave; Steven Eberhardt; Manickam Muruganandham; Lanie Ebora; Michael W Kattan; Victor E Reuter; Peter T Scardino; Jason A Koutcher
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 11.105

10.  Staging prostate cancer with dynamic contrast-enhanced endorectal MR imaging prior to radical prostatectomy: experienced versus less experienced readers.

Authors:  Jurgen J Fütterer; Marc R Engelbrecht; Henkjan J Huisman; Gerrit J Jager; Christina A Hulsbergen-van De Kaa; J Alfred Witjes; Jelle O Barentsz
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2005-11       Impact factor: 11.105

View more
  126 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.  [Standardised scoring of a multi-parametric 3-T MRI for a targeted MRI-guided prostate biopsy].

Authors:  C Arsov; D Blondin; R Rabenalt; G Antoch; P Albers; M Quentin
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 0.639

Review 3.  Molecular body imaging: MR imaging, CT, and US. part I. principles.

Authors:  Moritz F Kircher; Jürgen K Willmann
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 11.105

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.  Prostatic ductal adenocarcinoma: an aggressive tumour variant unrecognized on T2 weighted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

Authors:  Nicola Schieda; Niamh Coffey; Previn Gulavita; Omran Al-Dandan; Wael Shabana; Trevor A Flood
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2014-04-01       Impact factor: 5.315

6.  Information of prostate biopsy positive core: does it affect MR detection of prostate cancer on using 3T-MRI?

Authors:  Rika Yoshida; Yasushi Kaji; Yukihisa Tamaki; Takashi Katsube; Hajime Kitagaki; Tsunehito Kanbara; Takao Kamai
Journal:  Jpn J Radiol       Date:  2015-03-12       Impact factor: 2.374

7.  Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI perfusion quantification in hepatocellular carcinoma: comparison of gadoxetate disodium and gadobenate dimeglumine.

Authors:  Daniel Stocker; Stefanie Hectors; Octavia Bane; Naik Vietti-Violi; Daniela Said; Paul Kennedy; Jordan Cuevas; Guilherme M Cunha; Claude B Sirlin; Kathryn J Fowler; Sara Lewis; Bachir Taouli
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2021-05-27       Impact factor: 5.315

8.  Developing an effective strategy to improve the detection of significant prostate cancer by combining the 4Kscore and multiparametric MRI.

Authors:  Karim Marzouk; Behfar Ehdaie; Emily Vertosick; Stephen Zappala; Andrew Vickers
Journal:  Urol Oncol       Date:  2019-08-02       Impact factor: 3.498

Review 9.  Restriction spectrum imaging: An evolving imaging biomarker in prostate MRI.

Authors:  Ryan L Brunsing; Natalie M Schenker-Ahmed; Nathan S White; J Kellogg Parsons; Christopher Kane; Joshua Kuperman; Hauke Bartsch; Andrew Karim Kader; Rebecca Rakow-Penner; Tyler M Seibert; Daniel Margolis; Steven S Raman; Carrie R McDonald; Nikdokht Farid; Santosh Kesari; Donna Hansel; Ahmed Shabaik; Anders M Dale; David S Karow
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2016-08-16       Impact factor: 4.813

10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.