PURPOSE: Normalization of the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) may overcome ADC variability attributable to different patient and/or technical factors. The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of ADC and the normalized ADC (nADC) for differentiating between prostate cancer with a Gleason score (GS) = 6 and GS > 6 and to identify an optimum reference for nADC calculations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Our study population comprised 58 patients who underwent diffusion-weighted MRI followed by radical prostatectomy. The nADC of the prostate cancer was calculated as ADC (cancer)/ADC (reference) by using the obturator internus muscle, urine in the bladder, and a 20-ml saline bottle placed on the groin as references. We performed receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis to identify the optimum reference for nADC calculations. RESULTS: To differentiate between GS = 6 and GS > 6 prostate cancer, the area under the ROC curve of the nADC obtained with a saline bottle as reference was best (0.85) and significantly better than the area under the ADC ROC curve (0.71). CONCLUSIONS: nADC is superior to ADC for estimating the aggressiveness of prostate cancer. It is a noninvasive technique that aids in the selection of appropriate treatments.
PURPOSE: Normalization of the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) may overcome ADC variability attributable to different patient and/or technical factors. The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of ADC and the normalized ADC (nADC) for differentiating between prostate cancer with a Gleason score (GS) = 6 and GS > 6 and to identify an optimum reference for nADC calculations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Our study population comprised 58 patients who underwent diffusion-weighted MRI followed by radical prostatectomy. The nADC of the prostate cancer was calculated as ADC (cancer)/ADC (reference) by using the obturator internus muscle, urine in the bladder, and a 20-ml saline bottle placed on the groin as references. We performed receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis to identify the optimum reference for nADC calculations. RESULTS: To differentiate between GS = 6 and GS > 6 prostate cancer, the area under the ROC curve of the nADC obtained with a saline bottle as reference was best (0.85) and significantly better than the area under the ADC ROC curve (0.71). CONCLUSIONS:nADC is superior to ADC for estimating the aggressiveness of prostate cancer. It is a noninvasive technique that aids in the selection of appropriate treatments.
Authors: Joonmi Oh; Roland G Henry; Andrea Pirzkall; Ying Lu; Xiaojuan Li; Isabelle Catalaa; Susan Chang; William P Dillon; Sarah J Nelson Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2004-05 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Dow-Mu Koh; Matthew Blackledge; David J Collins; Anwar R Padhani; Toni Wallace; Benjamin Wilton; N Jane Taylor; J James Stirling; Rajesh Sinha; Pat Walicke; Martin O Leach; Ian Judson; Paul Nathan Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2009-06-23 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Tan B Nguyen; Alexander Ushinsky; Albert Yang; Michael Nguyentat; Sara Fardin; Edward Uchio; Chandana Lall; Thomas Lee; Roozbeh Houshyar Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2018-06-21 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Jie Zhu; Jie Zhang; Jia-Yin Gao; Jin-Ning Li; Da-Wei Yang; Min Chen; Cheng Zhou; Zheng-Han Yang Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2017-01 Impact factor: 1.889