K C McCammack1, C J Kane2, J K Parsons2, N S White1, N M Schenker-Ahmed1, J M Kuperman1, H Bartsch1, R S Desikan1, R A Rakow-Penner1, D Adams3, M A Liss4, R F Mattrey1, W G Bradley1, D J A Margolis5, S S Raman5, A Shabaik3, A M Dale1,6, D S Karow1. 1. Department of Radiology, University of California San Diego School of Medicine, San Diego, CA, USA. 2. Department of Urology, University of California San Diego School of Medicine, San Diego, CA, USA. 3. Department of Pathology, University of California San Diego School of Medicine, San Diego, CA, USA. 4. Department of Urology, University of Texas San Antonio School of Medicine, San Antonio, TX, USA. 5. Department of Radiology, University of California Los Angeles Geffen School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 6. Department of Neurosciences, University of California San Diego School of Medicine, San Diego, CA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is emerging as a robust, noninvasive method for detecting and characterizing prostate cancer (PCa), but limitations remain in its ability to distinguish cancerous from non-cancerous tissue. We evaluated the performance of a novel MRI technique, restriction spectrum imaging (RSI-MRI), to quantitatively detect and grade PCa compared with current standard-of-care MRI. METHODS: In a retrospective evaluation of 33 patients with biopsy-proven PCa who underwent RSI-MRI and standard MRI before radical prostatectomy, receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves were performed for RSI-MRI and each quantitative MRI term, with area under the ROC curve (AUC) used to compare each term's ability to differentiate between PCa and normal prostate. Spearman rank-order correlations were performed to assess each term's ability to predict PCa grade in the radical prostatectomy specimens. RESULTS: RSI-MRI demonstrated superior differentiation of PCa from normal tissue, with AUC of 0.94 and 0.85 for RSI-MRI and conventional diffusion MRI, respectively (P=0.04). RSI-MRI also demonstrated superior performance in predicting PCa aggressiveness, with Spearman rank-order correlation coefficients of 0.53 (P=0.002) and -0.42 (P=0.01) for RSI-MRI and conventional diffusion MRI, respectively, with tumor grade. CONCLUSIONS: RSI-MRI significantly improves upon current noninvasive PCa imaging and may potentially enhance its diagnosis and characterization.
BACKGROUND: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is emerging as a robust, noninvasive method for detecting and characterizing prostate cancer (PCa), but limitations remain in its ability to distinguish cancerous from non-cancerous tissue. We evaluated the performance of a novel MRI technique, restriction spectrum imaging (RSI-MRI), to quantitatively detect and grade PCa compared with current standard-of-care MRI. METHODS: In a retrospective evaluation of 33 patients with biopsy-proven PCa who underwent RSI-MRI and standard MRI before radical prostatectomy, receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves were performed for RSI-MRI and each quantitative MRI term, with area under the ROC curve (AUC) used to compare each term's ability to differentiate between PCa and normal prostate. Spearman rank-order correlations were performed to assess each term's ability to predict PCa grade in the radical prostatectomy specimens. RESULTS: RSI-MRI demonstrated superior differentiation of PCa from normal tissue, with AUC of 0.94 and 0.85 for RSI-MRI and conventional diffusion MRI, respectively (P=0.04). RSI-MRI also demonstrated superior performance in predicting PCa aggressiveness, with Spearman rank-order correlation coefficients of 0.53 (P=0.002) and -0.42 (P=0.01) for RSI-MRI and conventional diffusion MRI, respectively, with tumor grade. CONCLUSIONS: RSI-MRI significantly improves upon current noninvasive PCa imaging and may potentially enhance its diagnosis and characterization.
Authors: Piotr Kozlowski; Silvia D Chang; Edward C Jones; Kenneth W Berean; Henry Chen; S Larry Goldenberg Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2006-07 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Nathan S White; Carrie McDonald; Carrie R McDonald; Niky Farid; Josh Kuperman; David Karow; Natalie M Schenker-Ahmed; Hauke Bartsch; Rebecca Rakow-Penner; Dominic Holland; Ahmed Shabaik; Atle Bjørnerud; Tuva Hope; Jona Hattangadi-Gluth; Michael Liss; J Kellogg Parsons; Clark C Chen; Steve Raman; Daniel Margolis; Robert E Reiter; Leonard Marks; Santosh Kesari; Arno J Mundt; Christopher J Kane; Christopher J Kaine; Bob S Carter; William G Bradley; Anders M Dale Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2014-09-01 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Nathan S White; Trygve B Leergaard; Helen D'Arceuil; Jan G Bjaalie; Anders M Dale Journal: Hum Brain Mapp Date: 2012-01-16 Impact factor: 5.038
Authors: Deanna L Langer; Theodorus H van der Kwast; Andrew J Evans; John Trachtenberg; Brian C Wilson; Masoom A Haider Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2009-08 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Rebecca A Rakow-Penner; Nathan S White; Daniel J A Margolis; John Kellogg Parsons; Natalie Schenker-Ahmed; Joshua M Kuperman; Hauke Bartsch; Hyung W Choi; William G Bradley; Ahmed Shabaik; Jiaoti Huang; Michael A Liss; Leonard Marks; Christopher J Kane; Robert E Reiter; Steven S Raman; David S Karow; Anders M Dale Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2015-07-26 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: M Minhaj Siddiqui; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Hong Truong; Lambros Stamatakis; Srinivas Vourganti; Jeffrey Nix; Anthony N Hoang; Annerleim Walton-Diaz; Brian Shuch; Michael Weintraub; Jochen Kruecker; Hayet Amalou; Baris Turkbey; Maria J Merino; Peter L Choyke; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2013-06-12 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: A P Krishnan; R Karunamuni; K M Leyden; T M Seibert; R L Delfanti; J M Kuperman; H Bartsch; P Elbe; A Srikant; A M Dale; S Kesari; D E Piccioni; J A Hattangadi-Gluth; N Farid; C R McDonald; N S White Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2017-03-09 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Ely R Felker; Steven S Raman; Sepideh Shakeri; Sohrab A Mirak; Amirhossein M Bajgiran; Lorna Kwan; Pooria Khoshnoodi; Fuad F ElKhoury; Daniel J A Margolis; David Karow; David S K Lu; Nate White; Leonard S Marks Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2019-04-30 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Ryan L Brunsing; Natalie M Schenker-Ahmed; Nathan S White; J Kellogg Parsons; Christopher Kane; Joshua Kuperman; Hauke Bartsch; Andrew Karim Kader; Rebecca Rakow-Penner; Tyler M Seibert; Daniel Margolis; Steven S Raman; Carrie R McDonald; Nikdokht Farid; Santosh Kesari; Donna Hansel; Ahmed Shabaik; Anders M Dale; David S Karow Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2016-08-16 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Ghiam Yamin; Natalie M Schenker-Ahmed; Ahmed Shabaik; Dennis Adams; Hauke Bartsch; Joshua Kuperman; Nathan S White; Rebecca A Rakow-Penner; Kevin McCammack; J Kellogg Parsons; Christopher J Kane; Anders M Dale; David S Karow Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2016-06-01 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Christine H Feng; Christopher C Conlin; Kanha Batra; Ana E Rodríguez-Soto; Roshan Karunamuni; Aaron Simon; Joshua Kuperman; Rebecca Rakow-Penner; Michael E Hahn; Anders M Dale; Tyler M Seibert Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2021-03-31 Impact factor: 5.119