INTRODUCTION: Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance (MR) imaging (DWI) might be able to fulfill the need to accurately identify high-grade prostate carcinoma, in patients initially selected for active surveillance in the Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) screening era based on transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy Gleason score. We aimed to determine whether DWI is able to correctly identify those patients with a biopsy Gleason score of ≤ 3 + 3 = 6, but harboring Gleason 4 and/or 5 components in their radical prostatectomy (RP) specimen. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Whole-mount RP specimens were used to identify regions of interest corresponding with tumor on the DWI-derived apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) maps in 23 patients with a Gleason ≤ 3 + 3 = 6 on biopsy. ADC values were correlated with RP Gleason grades. Statistical analysis was performed by calculating area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for identification of prostate cancer with Gleason 4 and/or 5 components using DWI, and Mann-Whitney U testing was performed to detect differences in median ADC values for tumors with presence of Gleason grade 4 and/or 5 versus a highest Gleason grade of ≤ 3 on RP. RESULTS: A diagnostic accuracy of median ADC values for identifying patients subject to transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy undergrading with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.88 was established using RP Gleason score as a reference. In patients harboring a Gleason 4 and/or 5 component, the median ADC was 0.86 × 10(-3) mm/s (standard deviation ± 0.21), whereas patients harboring no Gleason 4 and/or 5 component displayed a median ADC of 1.16 × 10(-3) mm/s (standard deviation ± 0.19) for the single tumor slice with the lowest median ADC (P < 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: DWI is able to predict the presence of high-grade tumor in patients with a Gleason ≤ 3 + 3 = 6 on biopsy, providing important information for treatment decisions.
INTRODUCTION: Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance (MR) imaging (DWI) might be able to fulfill the need to accurately identify high-grade prostate carcinoma, in patients initially selected for active surveillance in the Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) screening era based on transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy Gleason score. We aimed to determine whether DWI is able to correctly identify those patients with a biopsy Gleason score of ≤ 3 + 3 = 6, but harboring Gleason 4 and/or 5 components in their radical prostatectomy (RP) specimen. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Whole-mount RP specimens were used to identify regions of interest corresponding with tumor on the DWI-derived apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) maps in 23 patients with a Gleason ≤ 3 + 3 = 6 on biopsy. ADC values were correlated with RP Gleason grades. Statistical analysis was performed by calculating area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for identification of prostate cancer with Gleason 4 and/or 5 components using DWI, and Mann-Whitney U testing was performed to detect differences in median ADC values for tumors with presence of Gleason grade 4 and/or 5 versus a highest Gleason grade of ≤ 3 on RP. RESULTS: A diagnostic accuracy of median ADC values for identifying patients subject to transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy undergrading with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.88 was established using RP Gleason score as a reference. In patients harboring a Gleason 4 and/or 5 component, the median ADC was 0.86 × 10(-3) mm/s (standard deviation ± 0.21), whereas patients harboring no Gleason 4 and/or 5 component displayed a median ADC of 1.16 × 10(-3) mm/s (standard deviation ± 0.19) for the single tumor slice with the lowest median ADC (P < 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: DWI is able to predict the presence of high-grade tumor in patients with a Gleason ≤ 3 + 3 = 6 on biopsy, providing important information for treatment decisions.
Authors: Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Hersh Chandarana; Nicole Hindman; Fang-Ming Deng; James S Babb; Samir S Taneja; Christian Geppert Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2013-06-12 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Thomas de Perrot; Olivier Rager; Max Scheffler; Martin Lord; Marc Pusztaszeri; Christophe Iselin; Osman Ratib; Jean-Paul Vallee Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2014-05-20 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Leonardo K Bittencourt; Ulrike I Attenberger; Daniel Lima; Ralph Strecker; Andre de Oliveira; Stefan O Schoenberg; Emerson L Gasparetto; Daniel Hausmann Journal: World J Radiol Date: 2014-06-28
Authors: Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Michael J Triolo; Jonathan Melamed; Henry Rusinek; Samir S Taneja; Fang-Ming Deng Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2014-02-25 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Radka Stoyanova; Mandeep Takhar; Yohann Tschudi; John C Ford; Gabriel Solórzano; Nicholas Erho; Yoganand Balagurunathan; Sanoj Punnen; Elai Davicioni; Robert J Gillies; Alan Pollack Journal: Transl Cancer Res Date: 2016-08 Impact factor: 1.241
Authors: F Cornelis; E Tricaud; A S Lasserre; F Petitpierre; J C Bernhard; Y Le Bras; M Yacoub; M Bouzgarrou; A Ravaud; N Grenier Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2014-08-13 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Karim Chamie; Geoffrey A Sonn; David S Finley; Nelly Tan; Daniel J A Margolis; Steven S Raman; Shyam Natarajan; Jiaoti Huang; Robert E Reiter Journal: Urology Date: 2014-02 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Robert R Flavell; Antonio C Westphalen; Carmin Liang; Christopher C Sotto; Susan M Noworolski; Daniel B Vigneron; Zhen J Wang; John Kurhanewicz Journal: Abdom Imaging Date: 2014-10