PURPOSE: To evaluate the potential utility of a number of parameters obtained at T2-weighted, diffusion-weighted, and dynamic contrast material-enhanced multiparametric magnetic resonance (MR) imaging for computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) of prostate cancer and assessment of cancer aggressiveness. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this institutional review board-approved HIPAA-compliant study, multiparametric MR images were acquired with an endorectal coil in 48 patients with prostate cancer (median age, 62.5 years; age range, 44-73 years) who subsequently underwent prostatectomy. A radiologist and a pathologist identified 104 regions of interest (ROIs) (61 cancer ROIs, 43 normal ROIs) based on correlation of histologic and MR findings. The 10th percentile and average apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values, T2-weighted signal intensity histogram skewness, and Tofts K(trans) were analyzed, both individually and combined, via linear discriminant analysis, with receiver operating characteristic curve analysis with area under the curve (AUC) as figure of merit, to distinguish cancer foci from normal foci. Spearman rank-order correlation (ρ) was calculated between cancer foci Gleason score (GS) and image features. RESULTS: AUC (maximum likelihood estimate ± standard error) values in the differentiation of prostate cancer from normal foci of 10th percentile ADC, average ADC, T2-weighted skewness, and K(trans) were 0.92 ± 0.03, 0.89 ± 0.03, 0.86 ± 0.04, and 0.69 ± 0.04, respectively. The combination of 10th percentile ADC, average ADC, and T2-weighted skewness yielded an AUC value for the same task of 0.95 ± 0.02. GS correlated moderately with 10th percentile ADC (ρ = -0.34, P = .008), average ADC (ρ = -0.30, P = .02), and K(trans) (ρ = 0.38, P = .004). CONCLUSION: The combination of 10th percentile ADC, average ADC, and T2-weighted skewness with CAD is promising in the differentiation of prostate cancer from normal tissue. ADC image features and K(trans) moderately correlate with GS.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the potential utility of a number of parameters obtained at T2-weighted, diffusion-weighted, and dynamic contrast material-enhanced multiparametric magnetic resonance (MR) imaging for computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) of prostate cancer and assessment of cancer aggressiveness. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this institutional review board-approved HIPAA-compliant study, multiparametric MR images were acquired with an endorectal coil in 48 patients with prostate cancer (median age, 62.5 years; age range, 44-73 years) who subsequently underwent prostatectomy. A radiologist and a pathologist identified 104 regions of interest (ROIs) (61 cancer ROIs, 43 normal ROIs) based on correlation of histologic and MR findings. The 10th percentile and average apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values, T2-weighted signal intensity histogram skewness, and Tofts K(trans) were analyzed, both individually and combined, via linear discriminant analysis, with receiver operating characteristic curve analysis with area under the curve (AUC) as figure of merit, to distinguish cancer foci from normal foci. Spearman rank-order correlation (ρ) was calculated between cancer foci Gleason score (GS) and image features. RESULTS: AUC (maximum likelihood estimate ± standard error) values in the differentiation of prostate cancer from normal foci of 10th percentile ADC, average ADC, T2-weighted skewness, and K(trans) were 0.92 ± 0.03, 0.89 ± 0.03, 0.86 ± 0.04, and 0.69 ± 0.04, respectively. The combination of 10th percentile ADC, average ADC, and T2-weighted skewness yielded an AUC value for the same task of 0.95 ± 0.02. GS correlated moderately with 10th percentile ADC (ρ = -0.34, P = .008), average ADC (ρ = -0.30, P = .02), and K(trans) (ρ = 0.38, P = .004). CONCLUSION: The combination of 10th percentile ADC, average ADC, and T2-weighted skewness with CAD is promising in the differentiation of prostate cancer from normal tissue. ADC image features and K(trans) moderately correlate with GS.
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: H P Chan; K Doi; C J Vyborny; R A Schmidt; C E Metz; K L Lam; T Ogura; Y Z Wu; H MacMahon Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 1990-10 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Baris Turkbey; 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 Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-12-21 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Anant Madabhushi; Michael D Feldman; Dimitris N Metaxas; John Tomaszeweski; Deborah Chute Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 10.048
Authors: Courtney A Woodfield; Glenn A Tung; David J Grand; John A Pezzullo; Jason T Machan; Joseph F Renzulli Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Maria Tretiakova; Tatjana Antic; David Binder; Masha Kocherginsky; Chuanhong Liao; Jerome B Taxy; Aytekin Oto Journal: Hum Pathol Date: 2012-10-12 Impact factor: 3.466
Authors: Pieter C Vos; Thomas Hambrock; Christina A Hulsbergen-van de Kaa; Jurgen J Fütterer; Jelle O Barentsz; Henkjan J Huisman Journal: Med Phys Date: 2008-03 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Ofer N Gofrit; Kevin C Zorn; Jerome B Taxy; Shang Lin; Gregory P Zagaja; Gary D Steinberg; Arieh L Shalhav Journal: J Urol Date: 2007-09-17 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Kevin C McCammack; Natalie M Schenker-Ahmed; Nathan S White; Shaun R Best; Robert M Marks; Jared Heimbigner; Christopher J Kane; J Kellogg Parsons; Joshua M Kuperman; Hauke Bartsch; Rahul S Desikan; Rebecca A Rakow-Penner; Michael A Liss; Daniel J A Margolis; Steven S Raman; Ahmed Shabaik; Anders M Dale; David S Karow Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2016-05
Authors: Matthew D Greer; Nathan Lay; Joanna H Shih; Tristan Barrett; Leonardo Kayat Bittencourt; Samuel Borofsky; Ismail 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: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-04-12 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Samuel G Armato; Henkjan Huisman; Karen Drukker; Lubomir Hadjiiski; Justin S Kirby; Nicholas Petrick; George Redmond; Maryellen L Giger; Kenny Cha; Artem Mamonov; Jayashree Kalpathy-Cramer; Keyvan Farahani Journal: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Date: 2018-11-10
Authors: Hsin-Yu Chen; Peder E Z Larson; Robert A Bok; Cornelius von Morze; Renuka Sriram; Romelyn Delos Santos; Justin Delos Santos; Jeremy W Gordon; Naeim Bahrami; Marcus Ferrone; John Kurhanewicz; Daniel B Vigneron Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2017-04-20 Impact factor: 12.701
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
Authors: Duc Fehr; Harini Veeraraghavan; Andreas Wibmer; Tatsuo Gondo; Kazuhiro Matsumoto; Herbert Alberto Vargas; Evis Sala; Hedvig Hricak; Joseph O Deasy Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2015-11-02 Impact factor: 11.205