Rajan T Gupta1, Christopher R Kauffman1, Kirema Garcia-Reyes1, Mark L Palmeri2, John F Madden3, Thomas J Polascik4, Andrew B Rosenkrantz5. 1. 1 Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, DUMC Box 3808, Durham, NC 27710. 2. 2 Department of Biomedical Engineering, Duke University, Durham, NC. 3. 3 Department of Pathology, Duke University Medical School, Durham, NC. 4. 4 Division of Urologic Surgery, Department of Surgery and Duke Prostate Center, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC. 5. 5 Department of Radiology, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, NY.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values for benign central zone (CZ) of the prostate were compared with ADC values of benign peripheral zone (PZ), benign transition zone (TZ), and prostate cancer, using histopathologic findings from radical prostatectomy as the reference standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study included 27 patients with prostate cancer (mean [± SD] age, 60.0 ± 7.6 years) who had 3-T endorectal coil MRI of the prostate performed before undergoing prostatectomy with whole-mount histopathologic assessment. Mean ADC values were recorded from the ROI within the index tumor and within benign CZ, PZ, and TZ, with the use of histopathologic findings as the reference standard. ADC values of the groups were compared using paired t tests and ROC curve analysis. RESULTS: The ADC of benign CZ in the right (1138 ± 123 × 10(-6) mm(2)/s) and left (1166 ± 141 × 10(-6) mm(2)/s) lobes was not significantly different (p = 0.217). However, the ADC of benign CZ (1154 ± 129 × 10(-6) mm(2)/s) was significantly lower (p < 0.001) than the ADCs of benign PZ (1579 ± 197 × 10(-6) mm(2)/s) and benign TZ (1429 ± 180 × 10(-6) mm(2)/s). Although the ADC of index tumors (1042 ± 134 × 10(-6) mm(2)/s) was significantly lower (p = 0.002) than the ADC of benign CZ there was no significant difference (p = 0.225) between benign CZ and tumors with a Gleason score of 6 (1119 ± 87 × 10(-6) mm(2)/s). In 22.2% of patients (6/27), including five patients who had tumors with a Gleason score greater than 6, the ADC was lower in benign CZ than in the index tumor. The AUC of ADC for the differentiation of benign CZ from index tumors was 72.4% (sensitivity, 70.4%; specificity, 51.9%), and the AUC of ADC for differentiation from tumors with a Gleason score greater than 6 was 76.7% (sensitivity, 75.0%; specificity, 65.0%). CONCLUSION: The ADC of benign CZ is lower than the ADC of other zones of the prostate and overlaps with the ADC of prostate cancer tissue, including high-grade tumors. Awareness of this potential diagnostic pitfall is important to avoid misinterpreting the normal CZ as suspicious for tumor.
OBJECTIVE: The apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values for benign central zone (CZ) of the prostate were compared with ADC values of benign peripheral zone (PZ), benign transition zone (TZ), and prostate cancer, using histopathologic findings from radical prostatectomy as the reference standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study included 27 patients with prostate cancer (mean [± SD] age, 60.0 ± 7.6 years) who had 3-T endorectal coil MRI of the prostate performed before undergoing prostatectomy with whole-mount histopathologic assessment. Mean ADC values were recorded from the ROI within the index tumor and within benign CZ, PZ, and TZ, with the use of histopathologic findings as the reference standard. ADC values of the groups were compared using paired t tests and ROC curve analysis. RESULTS: The ADC of benign CZ in the right (1138 ± 123 × 10(-6) mm(2)/s) and left (1166 ± 141 × 10(-6) mm(2)/s) lobes was not significantly different (p = 0.217). However, the ADC of benign CZ (1154 ± 129 × 10(-6) mm(2)/s) was significantly lower (p < 0.001) than the ADCs of benign PZ (1579 ± 197 × 10(-6) mm(2)/s) and benign TZ (1429 ± 180 × 10(-6) mm(2)/s). Although the ADC of index tumors (1042 ± 134 × 10(-6) mm(2)/s) was significantly lower (p = 0.002) than the ADC of benign CZ there was no significant difference (p = 0.225) between benign CZ and tumors with a Gleason score of 6 (1119 ± 87 × 10(-6) mm(2)/s). In 22.2% of patients (6/27), including five patients who had tumors with a Gleason score greater than 6, the ADC was lower in benign CZ than in the index tumor. The AUC of ADC for the differentiation of benign CZ from index tumors was 72.4% (sensitivity, 70.4%; specificity, 51.9%), and the AUC of ADC for differentiation from tumors with a Gleason score greater than 6 was 76.7% (sensitivity, 75.0%; specificity, 65.0%). CONCLUSION: The ADC of benign CZ is lower than the ADC of other zones of the prostate and overlaps with the ADC of prostate cancer tissue, including high-grade tumors. Awareness of this potential diagnostic pitfall is important to avoid misinterpreting the normal CZ as suspicious for tumor.
Entities:
Keywords:
central zone; multiparametric prostate MRI; prostate cancer
Authors: Rajan T Gupta; Christopher R Kauffman; Thomas J Polascik; Samir S Taneja; Andrew B Rosenkrantz Journal: Oncology (Williston Park) Date: 2013-04 Impact factor: 2.990
Authors: Barry G Hansford; Ibrahim Karademir; Yahui Peng; Yulei Jiang; Gregory Karczmar; Stephen Thomas; Ambereen Yousuf; Tatjana Antic; Scott Eggener; Aytekin Oto Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2014-05 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Michael J Triolo; Jonathan Melamed; Henry Rusinek; Samir S Taneja; Fang-Ming Deng Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2014-02-25 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Karim Chamie; Geoffrey A Sonn; David S Finley; Nelly Tan; Daniel J A Margolis; Steven S Raman; Shyam Natarajan; Jiaoti Huang; Robert E Reiter Journal: Urology Date: 2014-02 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Yahui Peng; Yulei Jiang; Tatjana Antic; Maryellen L Giger; Scott E Eggener; Aytekin Oto Journal: Radiology Date: 2014-02-12 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Ely R Felker; Steven S Raman; Daniel J Margolis; David S K Lu; Nicholas Shaheen; Shyam Natarajan; Devi Sharma; Jiaoti Huang; Fred Dorey; Leonard S Marks Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2017-08-31 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: M T Freitag; S Bickelhaupt; C Ziener; K Meier-Hein; J P Radtke; J Mosebach; T-A Kuder; H-P Schlemmer; F B Laun Journal: Radiologe Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 0.635
Authors: Lei Hu; Da Wei Zhou; Cai Xia Fu; Thomas Benkert; Yun Feng Xiao; Li Ming Wei; Jun Gong Zhao Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2021-09-09 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Elisenda Bonet-Carne; Edward Johnston; Alessandro Daducci; Joseph G Jacobs; Alex Freeman; David Atkinson; David J Hawkes; Shonit Punwani; Daniel C Alexander; Eleftheria Panagiotaki Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2018-10-31 Impact factor: 4.044