OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine and validate the optimal combination of parameters derived from 3-T diffusion-weighted imaging, dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging, and magnetic resonance (MR) spectroscopic imaging for discriminating low-grade from high-grade prostate cancer (PCa). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was approved by the institutional review board, and the need for informed consent was waived. Ninety-four patients with PCa who had undergone multiparametric MR imaging (MRI) before prostatectomy were included. Cancer was indicated on T2-weighted images, blinded to any functional data, with prostatectomy specimens as the reference standard. Tumors were classified as low grade or high grade based on Gleason score; peripheral zone (PZ) and transition zone (TZ) tumors were analyzed separately. In a development set (43 patients), the optimal combination of multiparametric MRI parameters was determined using logistic regression modeling. Subsequently, this combination was evaluated in a separate validation set (51 patients). RESULTS: In the PZ, the 25th percentile of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) derived from diffusion-weighted imaging and washout (WO25) derived from dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI offered the optimal combination of parameters. In the TZ, WO25 and the choline over spermine + creatine ratio (C/SC) derived from MR spectroscopic imaging showed the highest discriminating performance. Using the models built with the development set, 48 (74%) of 65 cancer lesions were classified correctly in the validation set. CONCLUSIONS: Multiparametric MRI is a useful tool for the discrimination between low-grade and high-grade PCa and performs better than any individual functional parameter in both the PZ and TZ. The 25th percentile of ADC + WO25 offered the optimal combination in the PZ, and the choline over spermine + creatine ratio + WO25 offered the optimal combination in the TZ. The ADC parameter has no additional value for the assessment of PCa aggressiveness in the TZ.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine and validate the optimal combination of parameters derived from 3-T diffusion-weighted imaging, dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging, and magnetic resonance (MR) spectroscopic imaging for discriminating low-grade from high-grade prostate cancer (PCa). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was approved by the institutional review board, and the need for informed consent was waived. Ninety-four patients with PCa who had undergone multiparametric MR imaging (MRI) before prostatectomy were included. Cancer was indicated on T2-weighted images, blinded to any functional data, with prostatectomy specimens as the reference standard. Tumors were classified as low grade or high grade based on Gleason score; peripheral zone (PZ) and transition zone (TZ) tumors were analyzed separately. In a development set (43 patients), the optimal combination of multiparametric MRI parameters was determined using logistic regression modeling. Subsequently, this combination was evaluated in a separate validation set (51 patients). RESULTS: In the PZ, the 25th percentile of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) derived from diffusion-weighted imaging and washout (WO25) derived from dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI offered the optimal combination of parameters. In the TZ, WO25 and the choline over spermine + creatine ratio (C/SC) derived from MR spectroscopic imaging showed the highest discriminating performance. Using the models built with the development set, 48 (74%) of 65 cancer lesions were classified correctly in the validation set. CONCLUSIONS: Multiparametric MRI is a useful tool for the discrimination between low-grade and high-grade PCa and performs better than any individual functional parameter in both the PZ and TZ. The 25th percentile of ADC + WO25 offered the optimal combination in the PZ, and the choline over spermine + creatine ratio + WO25 offered the optimal combination in the TZ. The ADC parameter has no additional value for the assessment of PCa aggressiveness in the TZ.
Authors: Alice C Yu; Chaitra Badve; Lee E Ponsky; Shivani Pahwa; Sara Dastmalchian; Matthew Rogers; Yun Jiang; Seunghee Margevicius; Mark Schluchter; William Tabayoyong; Robert Abouassaly; Debra McGivney; Mark A Griswold; Vikas Gulani Journal: Radiology Date: 2017-02-10 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: Nadia R Ayat; Jing-Can Qin; Han Cheng; Sarah Roelle; Songqi Gao; Yajuan Li; Zheng-Rong Lu Journal: ACS Med Chem Lett Date: 2018-06-06 Impact factor: 4.345
Authors: Nazanin Hajarol Asvadi; Sohrab Afshari Mirak; Amirhossein Mohammadian Bajgiran; Pooria Khoshnoodi; Pornphan Wibulpolprasert; Daniel Margolis; Anthony Sisk; Robert E Reiter; Steven S Raman Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2018-11
Authors: V J Gnanapragasam; K Burling; A George; S Stearn; A Warren; T Barrett; B Koo; F A Gallagher; A Doble; C Kastner; R A Parker Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2016-10-17 Impact factor: 4.379
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