PURPOSE: To retrospectively assess the utility of whole-lesion apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) metrics in characterizing the Gleason 4 component of Gleason 7 prostate cancer (PCa) at radical prostatectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy patients underwent phased-array coil 3T-magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) before prostatectomy. A uropathologist mapped locations and Gleason 4 percentage (G4%) of Gleason 7 tumors. Two radiologists independently reviewed ADC maps, aware of tumor locations but not G4%, and placed a volume-of-interest (VOI) on all slices including each lesion on the ADC map to obtain whole-lesion mean ADC and ADC entropy. Entropy reflects textural variation and increases with greater macroscopic heterogeneity. Performance for characterizing Gleason 7 tumors was assessed with mixed-model analysis of variance (ANOVA) and logistic regression. RESULTS: Among 84 Gleason 7 tumors (G4% 5%-85%, median 30%; 59 Gleason 3+4, 25 Gleason 4+3), ADC entropy was significantly higher in Gleason 4+3 than Gleason 3+4 tumors (R1: 5.27 ± 0.61 vs. 4.62 ± 0.78, P = 0.001; R2: 5.91 ± 0.32 vs. 5.57 ± 0.56, P = 0.004); mean ADC was not significantly different between these groups (R1: 0.90 ± 0.15*10(-3) cm(2) /s vs. 0.98 ± 0.21*10(-3) cm(2) /s, P = 0.075; R2: 1.06 ± 0.19*10(-3) cm(2) /s vs. 1.14 ± 0.16*10(-3) cm(2) /s, P = 0.083). The area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) for differentiating groups was significantly higher with ADC entropy than mean ADC for one observer (R1: 0.74 vs. 0.57, P = 0.027; R2: 0.69 vs. 0.61, P = 0.329). For R1, correlation with G4% was moderate for ADC entropy (r = 0.45) and weak for mean ADC (r = -0.25). For R2, correlation with G4% was moderate for ADC entropy (r = 0.41) and mean ADC (r = -0.32). For both readers, ADC entropy (P = 0.028-0.003), but not mean ADC (P = 0.384-0.854), was a significant independent predictor of G4%. CONCLUSION: Whole-lesion ADC entropy outperformed mean ADC in characterizing Gleason 7 tumors and may help refine prognosis for this heterogeneous PCa subset.
PURPOSE: To retrospectively assess the utility of whole-lesion apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) metrics in characterizing the Gleason 4 component of Gleason 7 prostate cancer (PCa) at radical prostatectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy patients underwent phased-array coil 3T-magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) before prostatectomy. A uropathologist mapped locations and Gleason 4 percentage (G4%) of Gleason 7 tumors. Two radiologists independently reviewed ADC maps, aware of tumor locations but not G4%, and placed a volume-of-interest (VOI) on all slices including each lesion on the ADC map to obtain whole-lesion mean ADC and ADC entropy. Entropy reflects textural variation and increases with greater macroscopic heterogeneity. Performance for characterizing Gleason 7 tumors was assessed with mixed-model analysis of variance (ANOVA) and logistic regression. RESULTS: Among 84 Gleason 7 tumors (G4% 5%-85%, median 30%; 59 Gleason 3+4, 25 Gleason 4+3), ADC entropy was significantly higher in Gleason 4+3 than Gleason 3+4 tumors (R1: 5.27 ± 0.61 vs. 4.62 ± 0.78, P = 0.001; R2: 5.91 ± 0.32 vs. 5.57 ± 0.56, P = 0.004); mean ADC was not significantly different between these groups (R1: 0.90 ± 0.15*10(-3) cm(2) /s vs. 0.98 ± 0.21*10(-3) cm(2) /s, P = 0.075; R2: 1.06 ± 0.19*10(-3) cm(2) /s vs. 1.14 ± 0.16*10(-3) cm(2) /s, P = 0.083). The area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) for differentiating groups was significantly higher with ADC entropy than mean ADC for one observer (R1: 0.74 vs. 0.57, P = 0.027; R2: 0.69 vs. 0.61, P = 0.329). For R1, correlation with G4% was moderate for ADC entropy (r = 0.45) and weak for mean ADC (r = -0.25). For R2, correlation with G4% was moderate for ADC entropy (r = 0.41) and mean ADC (r = -0.32). For both readers, ADC entropy (P = 0.028-0.003), but not mean ADC (P = 0.384-0.854), was a significant independent predictor of G4%. CONCLUSION: Whole-lesion ADC entropy outperformed mean ADC in characterizing Gleason 7 tumors and may help refine prognosis for this heterogeneous PCa subset.
Authors: M V Tefilli; E L Gheiler; R Tiguert; W Sakr; D J Grignon; M Banerjee; J E Pontes; D P Wood Journal: Urology Date: 1999-02 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: W A Sakr; M V Tefilli; D J Grignon; M Banerjee; J Dey; E L Gheiler; R Tiguert; I J Powell; D P Wood Journal: Urology Date: 2000-11-01 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Kris K Rasiah; Phillip D Stricker; Anne-Maree Haynes; Warick Delprado; Jennifer J Turner; David Golovsky; Phillip C Brenner; Raji Kooner; Gordon F O'Neill; John J Grygiel; Robert L Sutherland; Susan M Henshall Journal: Cancer Date: 2003-12-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Borna K Barth; Pieter J L De Visschere; Alexander Cornelius; Carlos Nicolau; Hebert Alberto Vargas; Daniel Eberli; Olivio F Donati Journal: Radiology Date: 2017-03-27 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Gabriel Nketiah; Mattijs Elschot; Eugene Kim; Jose R Teruel; Tom W Scheenen; Tone F Bathen; Kirsten M Selnæs Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2016-12-14 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Daniel I Glazer; Elmira Hassanzadeh; Andriy Fedorov; Olutayo I Olubiyi; Shayna S Goldberger; Tobias Penzkofer; Trevor A Flood; Paul Masry; Robert V Mulkern; Michelle S Hirsch; Clare M Tempany; Fiona M Fennessy Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2017-03
Authors: Katja Pinker; Fuki Shitano; Evis Sala; Richard K Do; Robert J Young; Andreas G Wibmer; Hedvig Hricak; Elizabeth J Sutton; Elizabeth A Morris Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2017-11-02 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Rajan T Gupta; Christopher R Kauffman; Kirema Garcia-Reyes; Mark L Palmeri; John F Madden; Thomas J Polascik; Andrew B Rosenkrantz Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Alexander P Cole; Bjoern J Langbein; Francesco Giganti; Fiona M Fennessy; Clare M Tempany; Mark Emberton Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2021-12-16 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Justin M Ream; Paul Nolan; Henry Rusinek; Fang-Ming Deng; Samir S Taneja Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2015-12 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Borna K Barth; Niels J Rupp; Alexander Cornelius; Daniel Nanz; Rainer Grobholz; Martin Schmidtpeter; Peter J Wild; Daniel Eberli; Olivio F Donati Journal: Curr Urol Date: 2019-03-08
Authors: Björn J Langbein; Filip Szczepankiewicz; Carl-Fredrik Westin; Camden Bay; Stephan E Maier; Adam S Kibel; Clare M Tempany; Fiona M Fennessy Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2021-12-01 Impact factor: 6.016