OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the influence of the choice of b values on the diagnostic value of the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) for detection and grading of prostate cancer (PCa). METHODS: Forty-one patients with biopsy-proven PCa underwent endorectal 3-T MRI before prostatectomy. Different combinations of b values (0-800 s/mm(2)) were used to calculate four representative ADC maps. Mean ADCs of tumours and non-malignant tissue were determined. Tumour appearance on different ADC maps was rated by three radiologists as good, fair or poor by assigning a visual score (VS) of 2, 1 or 0, respectively. Differences in the ADC values with the choice of b values were analysed using one-way ANOVA. RESULTS: Choice of b values had a highly (P < 0.001) significant influence on the absolute ADC in each tissue. Maps using b = [50, 800] and [0, 800] were rated best (VS= 1.6 ± 0.3) and second best (1.1 ± 0.3, P < 0.001), respectively. For low-grade carcinomas (Gleason score ≤ 6, 13/41 patients), only the former choice received scores better than fair (VS = 1.4 ± 0.3). Mean tumour ADCs showed significant negative correlation (Spearman's ρ -0.38 to -0.46, P < 0.05) with Gleason score. CONCLUSIONS: Absolute ADC values strongly depend on the choice of b values and therefore should be used with caution for diagnostic purposes. A minimum b value greater than zero is recommended for ADC calculation to improve the visual assessment of PCa in ADC maps. KEY POINTS: • Absolute ADC values are highly dependent on the choice of b values. • Absolute ADC thresholds should be used carefully to predict tumour aggressiveness. • Subjective ratings of ADC maps involving b = 0 s/mm ( 2 ) are poor to fair. • Minimum b value greater than 0 s/mm ( 2 ) is recommended for ADC calculation.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the influence of the choice of b values on the diagnostic value of the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) for detection and grading of prostate cancer (PCa). METHODS: Forty-one patients with biopsy-proven PCa underwent endorectal 3-T MRI before prostatectomy. Different combinations of b values (0-800 s/mm(2)) were used to calculate four representative ADC maps. Mean ADCs of tumours and non-malignant tissue were determined. Tumour appearance on different ADC maps was rated by three radiologists as good, fair or poor by assigning a visual score (VS) of 2, 1 or 0, respectively. Differences in the ADC values with the choice of b values were analysed using one-way ANOVA. RESULTS: Choice of b values had a highly (P < 0.001) significant influence on the absolute ADC in each tissue. Maps using b = [50, 800] and [0, 800] were rated best (VS= 1.6 ± 0.3) and second best (1.1 ± 0.3, P < 0.001), respectively. For low-grade carcinomas (Gleason score ≤ 6, 13/41 patients), only the former choice received scores better than fair (VS = 1.4 ± 0.3). Mean tumour ADCs showed significant negative correlation (Spearman's ρ -0.38 to -0.46, P < 0.05) with Gleason score. CONCLUSIONS: Absolute ADC values strongly depend on the choice of b values and therefore should be used with caution for diagnostic purposes. A minimum b value greater than zero is recommended for ADC calculation to improve the visual assessment of PCa in ADC maps. KEY POINTS: • Absolute ADC values are highly dependent on the choice of b values. • Absolute ADC thresholds should be used carefully to predict tumour aggressiveness. • Subjective ratings of ADC maps involving b = 0 s/mm ( 2 ) are poor to fair. • Minimum b value greater than 0 s/mm ( 2 ) is recommended for ADC calculation.
Authors: Thomas Hambrock; Diederik M Somford; Henkjan J Huisman; Inge M van Oort; J Alfred Witjes; Christina A Hulsbergen-van de Kaa; Thomas Scheenen; Jelle O Barentsz Journal: Radiology Date: 2011-05 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Anthony V D'Amico; Judd Moul; Peter R Carroll; Leon Sun; Deborah Lubeck; Ming-Hui Chen Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2003-06-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Yahui Peng; Yulei Jiang; Cheng Yang; Jeremy Bancroft Brown; Tatjana Antic; Ila Sethi; Christine Schmid-Tannwald; Maryellen L Giger; Scott E Eggener; Aytekin Oto Journal: Radiology Date: 2013-02-07 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Nadine Leclair; Gregor Thörmer; Ina Sorge; Lutz Ritter; Volker Schuster; Franz Wolfgang Hirsch Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-01-22 Impact factor: 3.240