OBJECTIVES: The objectives are determine the optimal combination of MR parameters for discriminating tumour within the prostate using linear discriminant analysis (LDA) and to compare model accuracy with that of an experienced radiologist. METHODS: Multiparameter MRIs in 24 patients before prostatectomy were acquired. Tumour outlines from whole-mount histology, T2-defined peripheral zone (PZ), and central gland (CG) were superimposed onto slice-matched parametric maps. T2, Apparent Diffusion Coefficient, initial area under the gadolinium curve, vascular parameters (K(trans),Kep,Ve), and (choline+polyamines+creatine)/citrate were compared between tumour and non-tumour tissues. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves determined sensitivity and specificity at spectroscopic voxel resolution and per lesion, and LDA determined the optimal multiparametric model for identifying tumours. Accuracy was compared with an expert observer. RESULTS: Tumours were significantly different from PZ and CG for all parameters (all p < 0.001). Area under the ROC curve for discriminating tumour from non-tumour was significantly greater (p < 0.001) for the multiparametric model than for individual parameters; at 90 % specificity, sensitivity was 41 % (MRSI voxel resolution) and 59 % per lesion. At this specificity, an expert observer achieved 28 % and 49 % sensitivity, respectively. CONCLUSION: The model was more accurate when parameters from all techniques were included and performed better than an expert observer evaluating these data. KEY POINTS: • The combined model increases diagnostic accuracy in prostate cancer compared with individual parameters • The optimal combined model includes parameters from diffusion, spectroscopy, perfusion, and anatominal MRI • The computed model improves tumour detection compared to an expert viewing parametric maps.
OBJECTIVES: The objectives are determine the optimal combination of MR parameters for discriminating tumour within the prostate using linear discriminant analysis (LDA) and to compare model accuracy with that of an experienced radiologist. METHODS: Multiparameter MRIs in 24 patients before prostatectomy were acquired. Tumour outlines from whole-mount histology, T2-defined peripheral zone (PZ), and central gland (CG) were superimposed onto slice-matched parametric maps. T2, Apparent Diffusion Coefficient, initial area under the gadolinium curve, vascular parameters (K(trans),Kep,Ve), and (choline+polyamines+creatine)/citrate were compared between tumour and non-tumour tissues. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves determined sensitivity and specificity at spectroscopic voxel resolution and per lesion, and LDA determined the optimal multiparametric model for identifying tumours. Accuracy was compared with an expert observer. RESULTS: Tumours were significantly different from PZ and CG for all parameters (all p < 0.001). Area under the ROC curve for discriminating tumour from non-tumour was significantly greater (p < 0.001) for the multiparametric model than for individual parameters; at 90 % specificity, sensitivity was 41 % (MRSI voxel resolution) and 59 % per lesion. At this specificity, an expert observer achieved 28 % and 49 % sensitivity, respectively. CONCLUSION: The model was more accurate when parameters from all techniques were included and performed better than an expert observer evaluating these data. KEY POINTS: • The combined model increases diagnostic accuracy in prostate cancer compared with individual parameters • The optimal combined model includes parameters from diffusion, spectroscopy, perfusion, and anatominal MRI • The computed model improves tumour detection compared to an expert viewing parametric maps.
Authors: Tom W J Scheenen; Jurgen Fütterer; Elisabeth Weiland; Paul van Hecke; Marc Lemort; Christian Zechmann; Heinz-Peter Schlemmer; Dale Broome; Geert Villeirs; Jianping Lu; Jelle Barentsz; Stefan Roell; Arend Heerschap Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2011-01 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Stefan A Reinsberg; Geoffrey S Payne; Sophie F Riches; Sue Ashley; Jonathan M Brewster; Veronica A Morgan; Nandita M deSouza Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2007-01 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Aytekin Oto; Cheng Yang; Arda Kayhan; Maria Tretiakova; Tatjana Antic; Christine Schmid-Tannwald; Scott Eggener; Gregory S Karczmar; Walter M Stadler Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2011-12 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: A E Wefer; H Hricak; D B Vigneron; F V Coakley; Y Lu; J Wefer; U Mueller-Lisse; P R Carroll; J Kurhanewicz Journal: J Urol Date: 2000-08 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Sophie F Riches; Geoffrey S Payne; Veronica A Morgan; Samir Sandhu; Cyril Fisher; Michael Germuska; David J Collins; Alan Thompson; Nandita M deSouza Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Jeffrey C Weinreb; Jeffrey D Blume; Fergus V Coakley; Thomas M Wheeler; Jean B Cormack; Christopher K Sotto; Haesun Cho; Akira Kawashima; Clare M Tempany-Afdhal; Katarzyna J Macura; Mark Rosen; Scott R Gerst; John Kurhanewicz Journal: Radiology Date: 2009-04 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: A S N Jackson; S A Reinsberg; S A Sohaib; E M Charles-Edwards; S Jhavar; T J Christmas; A C Thompson; M J Bailey; C M Corbishley; C Fisher; M O Leach; D P Dearnaley Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2009-02 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Alison M Mondul; Steven C Moore; Stephanie J Weinstein; Edward D Karoly; Joshua N Sampson; Demetrius Albanes Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2015-05-09 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Hugh Harvey; Matthew R Orton; Veronica A Morgan; Chris Parker; David Dearnaley; Cyril Fisher; Nandita M deSouza Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2017-01-05 Impact factor: 3.039