Andreas M Hötker1,2, Yousef Mazaheri3, Ömer Aras1, Junting Zheng4, Chaya S Moskowitz4, Tatsuo Gondo5, Kazuhiro Matsumoto6, Hedvig Hricak1, Oguz Akin1. 1. 1 Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Ave, New York, NY 10065. 2. 2 Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Universitätsmedizin Mainz, Mainz, Germany. 3. 3 Department of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY. 4. 4 Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY. 5. 5 Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY. 6. 6 Department of Pathology, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to investigate whether the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) value from DWI and the forward volume transfer constant (K(trans)) value from dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI independently predict prostate cancer aggressiveness, and to determine whether the combination of both parameters performs better than either parameter alone in assessing tumor aggressiveness before treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study included 158 men with histopathologically confirmed prostate cancer who underwent 3-T MRI before undergoing prostatectomy in 2011. Whole-mount step-section pathologic maps identified 195 prostate cancer foci that were 0.5 mL or larger; these foci were then volumetrically assessed to calculate the per-tumor ADC and K(trans) values. Associations between MRI and histopathologic parameters were assessed using Spearman correlation coefficients, univariate and multivariable logistic regression, and AUCs. RESULTS: The median ADC and K(trans) values showed moderate correlation only for tumors for which the Gleason score (GS) was 4 + 4 or higher (ρ = 0.547; p = 0.042). The tumor ADC value was statistically significantly associated with all dichotomized GSs (p < 0.005), including a GS of 3 + 3 versus a GS of 3 + 4 or higher (AUC, 0.693; p = 0.001). The tumor K(trans) value differed statistically significantly only between tumors with a GS of 3 + 3 and those with a primary Gleason grade of 4 (p ≤ 0.015), and it made a statistically significant contribution only in differentiating tumors with a GS of 4 + 3 or higher (AUC, 0.711; p < 0.001) and those with a GS of 4 + 4 or higher (AUC, 0.788; p < 0.001) from lower-grade tumors. Combining ADC and K(trans) values improved diagnostic performance in characterizing tumors with a GS of 4 + 3 or higher and those with a GS of 4 + 4 or higher (AUC, 0.739 and 0.856, respectively; p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Although the ADC value helped to differentiate between all GSs, the K(trans) value was only a benefit in characterizing more aggressive tumors. Combining these parameters improves their performance in identifying patients with aggressive tumors who may require radical treatment.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to investigate whether the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) value from DWI and the forward volume transfer constant (K(trans)) value from dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI independently predict prostate cancer aggressiveness, and to determine whether the combination of both parameters performs better than either parameter alone in assessing tumor aggressiveness before treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study included 158 men with histopathologically confirmed prostate cancer who underwent 3-T MRI before undergoing prostatectomy in 2011. Whole-mount step-section pathologic maps identified 195 prostate cancer foci that were 0.5 mL or larger; these foci were then volumetrically assessed to calculate the per-tumor ADC and K(trans) values. Associations between MRI and histopathologic parameters were assessed using Spearman correlation coefficients, univariate and multivariable logistic regression, and AUCs. RESULTS: The median ADC and K(trans) values showed moderate correlation only for tumors for which the Gleason score (GS) was 4 + 4 or higher (ρ = 0.547; p = 0.042). The tumor ADC value was statistically significantly associated with all dichotomized GSs (p < 0.005), including a GS of 3 + 3 versus a GS of 3 + 4 or higher (AUC, 0.693; p = 0.001). The tumor K(trans) value differed statistically significantly only between tumors with a GS of 3 + 3 and those with a primary Gleason grade of 4 (p ≤ 0.015), and it made a statistically significant contribution only in differentiating tumors with a GS of 4 + 3 or higher (AUC, 0.711; p < 0.001) and those with a GS of 4 + 4 or higher (AUC, 0.788; p < 0.001) from lower-grade tumors. Combining ADC and K(trans) values improved diagnostic performance in characterizing tumors with a GS of 4 + 3 or higher and those with a GS of 4 + 4 or higher (AUC, 0.739 and 0.856, respectively; p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Although the ADC value helped to differentiate between all GSs, the K(trans) value was only a benefit in characterizing more aggressive tumors. Combining these parameters improves their performance in identifying patients with aggressive tumors who may require radical treatment.
Authors: Hashim U Ahmed; Oguz Akin; Jonathan A Coleman; Sarah Crane; Mark Emberton; Larry Goldenberg; Hedvig Hricak; Mike W Kattan; John Kurhanewicz; Caroline M Moore; Chris Parker; Thomas J Polascik; Peter Scardino; Nicholas van As; Arnauld Villers Journal: BJU Int Date: 2011-11-11 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Olivio F Donati; Asim Afaq; Hebert Alberto Vargas; Yousef Mazaheri; Junting Zheng; Chaya S Moskowitz; Hedvig Hricak; Oguz Akin Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2014-05-21 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Guillaume Ploussard; Hendrik Isbarn; Alberto Briganti; Prasanna Sooriakumaran; Christian I Surcel; Laurent Salomon; Massimo Freschi; Cristian Mirvald; Henk G van der Poel; Anna Jenkins; Piet Ost; Inge M van Oort; Ofer Yossepowitch; Gianluca Giannarini; Roderick C N van den Bergh Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2014-08-15 Impact factor: 3.498
Authors: Stephen J Freedland; Christopher J Kane; Christopher L Amling; William J Aronson; Martha K Terris; Joseph C Presti Journal: Urology Date: 2007-03 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Thomas Hambrock; Diederik M Somford; Henkjan J Huisman; Inge M van Oort; J Alfred Witjes; Christina A Hulsbergen-van de Kaa; Thomas Scheenen; Jelle O Barentsz Journal: Radiology Date: 2011-05 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Yahui Peng; Yulei Jiang; Cheng Yang; Jeremy Bancroft Brown; Tatjana Antic; Ila Sethi; Christine Schmid-Tannwald; Maryellen L Giger; Scott E Eggener; Aytekin Oto Journal: Radiology Date: 2013-02-07 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: P S Tofts; G Brix; D L Buckley; J L Evelhoch; E Henderson; M V Knopp; H B Larsson; T Y Lee; N A Mayr; G J Parker; R E Port; J Taylor; R M Weisskoff Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 1999-09 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Stephen J Riederer; Eric A Borisch; Adam T Froemming; Roger C Grimm; Akira Kawashima; Lance A Mynderse; Joshua D Trzasko Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2017-01-27 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: Ramesh Paudyal; Yonggang Lu; Vaios Hatzoglou; Andre Moreira; Hilda E Stambuk; Jung Hun Oh; Kristen M Cunanan; David Aramburu Nunez; Yousef Mazaheri; Mithat Gonen; Alan Ho; James A Fagin; Richard J Wong; Ashok Shaha; R Michael Tuttle; Amita Shukla-Dave Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2019-11-04 Impact factor: 4.044
Authors: Nicole Wake; Hersh Chandarana; Henry Rusinek; Koji Fujimoto; Linda Moy; Daniel K Sodickson; Sungheon Gene Kim Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2018-05-16 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: Sarah L Hurrell; Sean D McGarry; Amy Kaczmarowski; Kenneth A Iczkowski; Kenneth Jacobsohn; Mark D Hohenwalter; William A Hall; William A See; Anjishnu Banerjee; David K Charles; Marja T Nevalainen; Alexander C Mackinnon; Peter S LaViolette Journal: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Date: 2017-10-27
Authors: Michela Antonelli; Edward W Johnston; Nikolaos Dikaios; King K Cheung; Harbir S Sidhu; Mrishta B Appayya; Francesco Giganti; Lucy A M Simmons; Alex Freeman; Clare Allen; Hashim U Ahmed; David Atkinson; Sebastien Ourselin; Shonit Punwani Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2019-06-11 Impact factor: 5.315