OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) from diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DW-MRI) could help improve the prediction of insignificant prostate cancer in candidates for active surveillance (AS). METHODS: Enrolled in this retrospective study were 287 AS candidates who underwent DW-MRI before radical prostatectomy. Patients were stratified into two groups; Group A consisted of patients with no visible tumour or a suspected tumour ADC value > 0.830 × 10(-3) mm(2)/sec and Group B consisted of patients with a suspected tumour ADC value < 0.830 × 10(-3) mm(2)/sec. We compared pathological outcomes in each group. RESULTS: Group A had 243 (84.7 %) patients and Group B had 44 (15.3 %) patients. The proportion of organ-confined Gleason ≤ 6 disease and insignificant prostate cancer was significantly higher in Group A than Group B (61.3 % vs. 38.6 %, p = 0.005 and 47.7 % vs. 25.0 %, p = 0.005, respectively). On multivariate analysis, a high ADC value was the independent predictor of organ-confined Gleason ≤ 6 disease and insignificant prostate cancer (odds ratio = 2.43, p = 0.011 and odds ratio = 2.74, p = 0.009, respectively). CONCLUSION: Tumour ADC values may be a useful marker for predicting insignificant prostate cancer in candidates for AS. KEY POINTS: • ADC from DW-MRI can help assess prostate cancer aggressiveness in potential AS candidates. • There was a closed correlation between higher ADC values and insignificant prostate cancer. • The absence of lesions on DWI/DWI can help select potential AS candidates.
OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) from diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DW-MRI) could help improve the prediction of insignificant prostate cancer in candidates for active surveillance (AS). METHODS: Enrolled in this retrospective study were 287 AS candidates who underwent DW-MRI before radical prostatectomy. Patients were stratified into two groups; Group A consisted of patients with no visible tumour or a suspected tumour ADC value > 0.830 × 10(-3) mm(2)/sec and Group B consisted of patients with a suspected tumour ADC value < 0.830 × 10(-3) mm(2)/sec. We compared pathological outcomes in each group. RESULTS: Group A had 243 (84.7 %) patients and Group B had 44 (15.3 %) patients. The proportion of organ-confined Gleason ≤ 6 disease and insignificant prostate cancer was significantly higher in Group A than Group B (61.3 % vs. 38.6 %, p = 0.005 and 47.7 % vs. 25.0 %, p = 0.005, respectively). On multivariate analysis, a high ADC value was the independent predictor of organ-confined Gleason ≤ 6 disease and insignificant prostate cancer (odds ratio = 2.43, p = 0.011 and odds ratio = 2.74, p = 0.009, respectively). CONCLUSION:Tumour ADC values may be a useful marker for predicting insignificant prostate cancer in candidates for AS. KEY POINTS: • ADC from DW-MRI can help assess prostate cancer aggressiveness in potential AS candidates. • There was a closed correlation between higher ADC values and insignificant prostate cancer. • The absence of lesions on DWI/DWI can help select potential AS candidates.
Authors: Roderick C N van den Bergh; Stijn Roemeling; Monique J Roobol; Wouter Roobol; Fritz H Schröder; Chris H Bangma Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2007-05-25 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Diederik M Somford; Caroline M Hoeks; Christina A Hulsbergen-van de Kaa; Thomas Hambrock; Jurgen J Fütterer; J Alfred Witjes; Chris H Bangma; Henk Vergunst; Geert A Smits; Jorg R Oddens; Inge M van Oort; Jelle O Barentsz Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2013-03 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Thomas J Guzzo; Matthew J Resnick; Daniel J Canter; Trinity J Bivalacqua; Mark A Rosen; Meredith R Bergey; Laurie Magerfleisch; John E Tomazewski; Alan J Wein; S Bruce Malkowicz Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2012 May-Jun Impact factor: 3.498
Authors: Jeffrey J Tosoian; Bruce J Trock; Patricia Landis; Zhaoyong Feng; Jonathan I Epstein; Alan W Partin; Patrick C Walsh; H Ballentine Carter Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-04-04 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Mark S Soloway; Cynthia T Soloway; Ahmed Eldefrawy; Kristell Acosta; Bruce Kava; Murugesan Manoharan Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2010-08-20 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Mark Louie-Johnsun; Mischel Neill; Karien Treurnicht; Michael Jarmulowicz; Christopher Eden Journal: BJU Int Date: 2009-05-07 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: N M deSouza; S F Riches; N J Vanas; V A Morgan; S A Ashley; C Fisher; G S Payne; C Parker Journal: Clin Radiol Date: 2008-04-18 Impact factor: 2.350
Authors: Klaus Eredics; Karl Dorfinger; Gero Kramer; Anton Ponholzer; Stephan Madersbacher Journal: Wien Klin Wochenschr Date: 2016-12-21 Impact factor: 1.704
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: Xiaosong Meng; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Neil Mendhiratta; Michael Fenstermaker; Richard Huang; James S Wysock; Marc A Bjurlin; Susan Marshall; Fang-Ming Deng; Ming Zhou; Jonathan Melamed; William C Huang; Herbert Lepor; Samir S Taneja Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2015-06-22 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Pietro Pepe; Davide D'Urso; Antonio Garufi; Giandomenico Priolo; Michele Pennisi; Giorgio Russo; Maria Gabriella Sabini; Lucia Maria Valastro; Antonio Galia; Filippo Fraggetta Journal: In Vivo Date: 2017 May-Jun Impact factor: 2.155