Niamh Coffey1, Nicola Schieda1, Greg Cron1, Previn Gulavita2, Kien T Mai2, Trevor A Flood2. 1. The Ottawa Hospital, The University of Ottawa, Department of Medical Imaging, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 2. The Ottawa Hospital, The University of Ottawa, Department of Anatomical Pathology, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Prostatic ductal adenocarcinoma (DCa) is an aggressive variant of conventional adenocarcinoma (CCa) with mixed DCa and CCa tumors comprising up to 5% of all prostate cancers. DCa may be underestimated on T2-weighted (T2W) MRI. This study assessed the mp-MRI appearance of DCa as compared with CCa. METHODS: With research ethics board approval, we identified 38 patients who underwent mp-MRI (T2W, DWI, and DCE) and radical prostatectomy (RP) between 2012 and 2014. Eight DCa in 8 patients and 39 CCa tumor foci in 30 consecutive patients were identified. Tumor volume, apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC;10(-3) mm(2) /s), and time-signal intensity (SI) curves were calculated. Parametric data were compared using the Kruskal-Wallis test and univariate regression. Time-SI curves were compared using the chi-square test. RESULTS: Tumor volumes were: 1.62(±1.02) for DCa, 1.03(±0.54) for Gleason 9, 0.88(±0.93) for Gleason 7/8, and 0.26(±0.14) mL for Gleason 6. There was no difference in size between DCa and Gleason 9 (P = 0.22); however, DCa were larger than Gleason 7/8 (P = 0.03) and Gleason 6 (P = 0.003) tumors. ADC values were: 0.789(±0.22) for DCa, 1.01(±0.19) for Gleason 9, 0.992(±0.23) for Gleason 7/8 and 1.389(±0.41) 10(-3) mm(2) /s for Gleason 6 tumors. There was no difference in ADC between DCa and Gleason 9 (P = 0.14) or Gleason 7/8 (P = 0.055) tumors. There was a difference in ADC for DCa and Gleason ≥7 CCa compared to Gleason 6 tumors, (P < 0.001 and P = 0.012). All DCa demonstrated type III time-SI curves. Gleason ≥ 7 tumors demonstrated type II/III curves. Gleason 6 tumors demonstrated Type I/II time-SI curves. There was no difference in curve type between groups, (P = 0.18). CONCLUSION: Although DCa mimics Gleason score 3 + 3 = 6 tumor at T2W MRI; DCa resembles Gleason ≥7 CCa on mp-MRI.
BACKGROUND:Prostatic ductal adenocarcinoma (DCa) is an aggressive variant of conventional adenocarcinoma (CCa) with mixed DCa and CCa tumors comprising up to 5% of all prostate cancers. DCa may be underestimated on T2-weighted (T2W) MRI. This study assessed the mp-MRI appearance of DCa as compared with CCa. METHODS: With research ethics board approval, we identified 38 patients who underwent mp-MRI (T2W, DWI, and DCE) and radical prostatectomy (RP) between 2012 and 2014. Eight DCa in 8 patients and 39 CCa tumor foci in 30 consecutive patients were identified. Tumor volume, apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC;10(-3) mm(2) /s), and time-signal intensity (SI) curves were calculated. Parametric data were compared using the Kruskal-Wallis test and univariate regression. Time-SI curves were compared using the chi-square test. RESULTS:Tumor volumes were: 1.62(±1.02) for DCa, 1.03(±0.54) for Gleason 9, 0.88(±0.93) for Gleason 7/8, and 0.26(±0.14) mL for Gleason 6. There was no difference in size between DCa and Gleason 9 (P = 0.22); however, DCa were larger than Gleason 7/8 (P = 0.03) and Gleason 6 (P = 0.003) tumors. ADC values were: 0.789(±0.22) for DCa, 1.01(±0.19) for Gleason 9, 0.992(±0.23) for Gleason 7/8 and 1.389(±0.41) 10(-3) mm(2) /s for Gleason 6 tumors. There was no difference in ADC between DCa and Gleason 9 (P = 0.14) or Gleason 7/8 (P = 0.055) tumors. There was a difference in ADC for DCa and Gleason ≥7 CCa compared to Gleason 6 tumors, (P < 0.001 and P = 0.012). All DCa demonstrated type III time-SI curves. Gleason ≥ 7 tumors demonstrated type II/III curves. Gleason 6 tumors demonstrated Type I/II time-SI curves. There was no difference in curve type between groups, (P = 0.18). CONCLUSION: Although DCa mimics Gleason score 3 + 3 = 6 tumor at T2W MRI; DCa resembles Gleason ≥7 CCa on mp-MRI.
Authors: Previn Gulavita; Shaheed W Hakim; Nicola Schieda; Rodney H Breau; Chris Morash; Daniel T Keefe; Susan J Robertson; Kien T Mai; Eric C Belanger; Trevor A Flood Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2015 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Jorge Abreu-Gomez; Daniel Walker; Tareq Alotaibi; Matthew D F McInnes; Trevor A Flood; Nicola Schieda Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2020-03-24 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Weranja Ranasinghe; Daniel D Shapiro; Miao Zhang; Tharakeswara Bathala; Nora Navone; Timothy C Thompson; Bradley Broom; Ana Aparicio; Shi-Ming Tu; Chad Tang; John W Davis; Louis Pisters; Brian F Chapin Journal: Nat Rev Urol Date: 2021-04-06 Impact factor: 14.432
Authors: Harbir S Sidhu; Salvatore Benigno; Balaji Ganeshan; Nikos Dikaios; Edward W Johnston; Clare Allen; Alex Kirkham; Ashley M Groves; Hashim U Ahmed; Mark Emberton; Stuart A Taylor; Steve Halligan; Shonit Punwani Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2016-09-12 Impact factor: 5.315