OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article is to investigate the effect of b values on apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values estimated from 1.5-T diffusion-weighted MRI (DWI) of the prostate acquired with an endorectal coil in distinguishing prostate cancer from normal-tissue regions of interest (ROIs) and the correlation of ADC values with the tumor Gleason score. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Pretreatment DWI studies were analyzed retrospectively in 51 consecutive patients with prostate cancer with either two (b=0 and 1000 s/mm2; n=26 patients) or five (b=0, 50, 200, 1500, and 2000 s/mm2; n=25 patients) b values. In 45 normal peripheral-zone ROIs and 65 prostate cancer ROIs (14 in the central gland), ADC values were estimated by use of several combinations of two or five b values and a monoexponential model. We used the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve to characterize the effectiveness of ADC values in distinguishing prostate cancer from normal-tissue ROIs, and we calculated Spearman rank-order correlation between ADC values and the Gleason score. RESULTS: ADC values were often significantly different (p<0.001) when estimated from different combinations of two or five b values. However, except when both b values were less than or equal to 200 mm2/s or greater than or equal to 1500 mm2/s, the AUC value for distinguishing prostate cancer from normal-tissue ROIs was similar (0.88-0.93). The correlation coefficients between ADC values and the Gleason score were between -0.30 and -0.68. CONCLUSION: The choice of b values can significantly affect ADC estimates. ADC values can produce a similar discriminant performance in distinguishing prostate cancer from normal-tissue ROIs and in correlation with the Gleason score, but an appropriate ADC cutoff value needs to be selected specifically for each b-value combination.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article is to investigate the effect of b values on apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values estimated from 1.5-T diffusion-weighted MRI (DWI) of the prostate acquired with an endorectal coil in distinguishing prostate cancer from normal-tissue regions of interest (ROIs) and the correlation of ADC values with the tumor Gleason score. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Pretreatment DWI studies were analyzed retrospectively in 51 consecutive patients with prostate cancer with either two (b=0 and 1000 s/mm2; n=26 patients) or five (b=0, 50, 200, 1500, and 2000 s/mm2; n=25 patients) b values. In 45 normal peripheral-zone ROIs and 65 prostate cancer ROIs (14 in the central gland), ADC values were estimated by use of several combinations of two or five b values and a monoexponential model. We used the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve to characterize the effectiveness of ADC values in distinguishing prostate cancer from normal-tissue ROIs, and we calculated Spearman rank-order correlation between ADC values and the Gleason score. RESULTS: ADC values were often significantly different (p<0.001) when estimated from different combinations of two or five b values. However, except when both b values were less than or equal to 200 mm2/s or greater than or equal to 1500 mm2/s, the AUC value for distinguishing prostate cancer from normal-tissue ROIs was similar (0.88-0.93). The correlation coefficients between ADC values and the Gleason score were between -0.30 and -0.68. CONCLUSION: The choice of b values can significantly affect ADC estimates. ADC values can produce a similar discriminant performance in distinguishing prostate cancer from normal-tissue ROIs and in correlation with the Gleason score, but an appropriate ADC cutoff value needs to be selected specifically for each b-value combination.
Authors: Kishor Karki; Geoffrey D Hugo; John C Ford; Kathryn M Olsen; Siddharth Saraiya; Robert Groves; Elisabeth Weiss Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2015-09-25 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Sarah L Hurrell; Sean D McGarry; Amy Kaczmarowski; Kenneth A Iczkowski; Kenneth Jacobsohn; Mark D Hohenwalter; William A Hall; William A See; Anjishnu Banerjee; David K Charles; Marja T Nevalainen; Alexander C Mackinnon; Peter S LaViolette Journal: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Date: 2017-10-27
Authors: Lei Hu; Da Wei Zhou; Cai Xia Fu; Thomas Benkert; Yun Feng Xiao; Li Ming Wei; Jun Gong Zhao Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2021-09-09 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Sean D McGarry; John D Bukowy; Kenneth A Iczkowski; Allison K Lowman; Michael Brehler; Samuel Bobholz; Andrew Nencka; Alex Barrington; Kenneth Jacobsohn; Jackson Unteriner; Petar Duvnjak; Michael Griffin; Mark Hohenwalter; Tucker Keuter; Wei Huang; Tatjana Antic; Gladell Paner; Watchareepohn Palangmonthip; Anjishnu Banerjee; Peter S LaViolette Journal: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Date: 2020-09-09
Authors: Elisenda Bonet-Carne; Edward Johnston; Alessandro Daducci; Joseph G Jacobs; Alex Freeman; David Atkinson; David J Hawkes; Shonit Punwani; Daniel C Alexander; Eleftheria Panagiotaki Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2018-10-31 Impact factor: 4.044