Kevin C McCammack1, Natalie M Schenker-Ahmed1, Nathan S White1, Shaun R Best1, Robert M Marks2, Jared Heimbigner2, Christopher J Kane3, J Kellogg Parsons3, Joshua M Kuperman1, Hauke Bartsch1, Rahul S Desikan1, Rebecca A Rakow-Penner1, Michael A Liss4, Daniel J A Margolis5, Steven S Raman5, Ahmed Shabaik6, Anders M Dale1,7, David S Karow8. 1. Department of Radiology, University of California San Diego School of Medicine, 200 W Arbor Dr, San Diego, CA, 92103, USA. 2. Department of Radiology, Naval Medical Center San Diego, San Diego, USA. 3. Department of Urology, University of California San Diego School of Medicine, San Diego, USA. 4. Department of Urology, University of Texas San Antonio School of Medicine, San Antonio, USA. 5. Department of Radiology, University of California Los Angeles Geffen School of Medicine, Los Angeles, USA. 6. Department of Pathology, University of California San Diego School of Medicine, San Diego, USA. 7. Department of Neurosciences, University of California San Diego School of Medicine, San Diego, USA. 8. Department of Radiology, University of California San Diego School of Medicine, 200 W Arbor Dr, San Diego, CA, 92103, USA. dkarow@ucsd.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the diagnostic performance of restriction spectrum imaging (RSI), with that of conventional multi-parametric (MP) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for prostate cancer (PCa) detection in a blinded reader-based format. METHODS: Three readers independently evaluated 100 patients (67 with proven PCa) who underwent MP-MRI and RSI within 6 months of systematic biopsy (N = 67; 23 with targeting performed) or prostatectomy (N = 33). Imaging was performed at 3 Tesla using a phased-array coil. Readers used a five-point scale estimating the likelihood of PCa present in each prostate sextant. Evaluation was performed in two separate sessions, first using conventional MP-MRI alone then immediately with MP-MRI and RSI in the same session. Four weeks later, another scoring session used RSI and T2-weighted imaging (T2WI) without conventional diffusion-weighted or dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging. Reader interpretations were then compared to prostatectomy data or biopsy results. Receiver operating characteristic curves were performed, with area under the curve (AUC) used to compare across groups. RESULTS: MP-MRI with RSI achieved higher AUCs compared to MP-MRI alone for identifying high-grade (Gleason score greater than or equal to 4 + 3=7) PCa (0.78 vs. 0.70 at the sextant level; P < 0.001 and 0.85 vs. 0.79 at the hemigland level; P = 0.04). RSI and T2WI alone achieved AUCs similar to MP-MRI for high-grade PCa (0.71 vs. 0.70 at the sextant level). With hemigland analysis, high-grade disease results were similar when comparing RSI + T2WI with MP-MRI, although with greater AUCs compared to the sextant analysis (0.80 vs. 0.79). CONCLUSION: Including RSI with MP-MRI improves PCa detection compared to MP-MRI alone, and RSI with T2WI achieves similar PCa detection as MP-MRI.
PURPOSE: To compare the diagnostic performance of restriction spectrum imaging (RSI), with that of conventional multi-parametric (MP) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for prostate cancer (PCa) detection in a blinded reader-based format. METHODS: Three readers independently evaluated 100 patients (67 with proven PCa) who underwent MP-MRI and RSI within 6 months of systematic biopsy (N = 67; 23 with targeting performed) or prostatectomy (N = 33). Imaging was performed at 3 Tesla using a phased-array coil. Readers used a five-point scale estimating the likelihood of PCa present in each prostate sextant. Evaluation was performed in two separate sessions, first using conventional MP-MRI alone then immediately with MP-MRI and RSI in the same session. Four weeks later, another scoring session used RSI and T2-weighted imaging (T2WI) without conventional diffusion-weighted or dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging. Reader interpretations were then compared to prostatectomy data or biopsy results. Receiver operating characteristic curves were performed, with area under the curve (AUC) used to compare across groups. RESULTS: MP-MRI with RSI achieved higher AUCs compared to MP-MRI alone for identifying high-grade (Gleason score greater than or equal to 4 + 3=7) PCa (0.78 vs. 0.70 at the sextant level; P < 0.001 and 0.85 vs. 0.79 at the hemigland level; P = 0.04). RSI and T2WI alone achieved AUCs similar to MP-MRI for high-grade PCa (0.71 vs. 0.70 at the sextant level). With hemigland analysis, high-grade disease results were similar when comparing RSI + T2WI with MP-MRI, although with greater AUCs compared to the sextant analysis (0.80 vs. 0.79). CONCLUSION: Including RSI with MP-MRI improves PCa detection compared to MP-MRI alone, and RSI with T2WI achieves similar PCa detection as MP-MRI.
Authors: Hebert Alberto Vargas; Oguz Akin; Amita Shukla-Dave; Jingbo Zhang; Kristen L Zakian; Junting Zheng; Kent Kanao; Debra A Goldman; Chaya S Moskowitz; Victor E Reuter; James A Eastham; Peter T Scardino; Hedvig Hricak Journal: Radiology Date: 2012-09-05 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: M Minhaj Siddiqui; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Baris Turkbey; Arvin K George; Jason Rothwax; Nabeel Shakir; Chinonyerem Okoro; Dima Raskolnikov; Howard L Parnes; W Marston Linehan; Maria J Merino; Richard M Simon; Peter L Choyke; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto Journal: JAMA Date: 2015-01-27 Impact factor: 56.272
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: R A Rakow-Penner; N S White; J K Parsons; H W Choi; M A Liss; J M Kuperman; N Schenker-Ahmed; H Bartsch; R F Mattrey; W G Bradley; A Shabaik; J Huang; D J A Margolis; S S Raman; L Marks; C J Kane; R E Reiter; D S Karow; A M Dale Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2015-01-06 Impact factor: 5.554
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: 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: Sofie Isebaert; Laura Van den Bergh; Karin Haustermans; Steven Joniau; Evelyne Lerut; Liesbeth De Wever; Frederik De Keyzer; Tom Budiharto; Pieter Slagmolen; Hendrik Van Poppel; Raymond Oyen Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2012-11-21 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Nikdokht Farid; Daniela B Almeida-Freitas; Nathan S White; Carrie R McDonald; Karra A Muller; Scott R Vandenberg; Santosh Kesari; Anders M Dale Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2013-09-30 Impact factor: 6.244
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: Ana E Rodríguez-Soto; Maren M Sjaastad Andreassen; Lauren K Fang; Christopher C Conlin; Helen H Park; Grace S Ahn; Hauke Bartsch; Joshua Kuperman; Igor Vidić; Haydee Ojeda-Fournier; Anne M Wallace; Michael Hahn; Tyler M Seibert; Neil Peter Jerome; Agnes Østlie; Tone Frost Bathen; Pål Erik Goa; Rebecca Rakow-Penner; Anders M Dale Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2021-12-14 Impact factor: 3.737
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: Michael A Liss; Lisa F Newcomb; Yingye Zheng; Michael P Garcia; Christopher P Filson; Hilary Boyer; James D Brooks; Peter R Carroll; Matthew R Cooperberg; William J Ellis; Martin E Gleave; Frances M Martin; Todd Morgan; Peter S Nelson; Andrew A Wagner; Ian M Thompson; Daniel W Lin Journal: J Urol Date: 2020-04-28 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Christopher C Conlin; Christine H Feng; Ana E Rodriguez-Soto; Roshan A Karunamuni; Joshua M Kuperman; Dominic Holland; Rebecca Rakow-Penner; Michael E Hahn; Tyler M Seibert; Anders M Dale Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2020-10-31 Impact factor: 4.813
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
Authors: Colleen Bailey; Bernard Siow; Eleftheria Panagiotaki; John H Hipwell; Thomy Mertzanidou; Julie Owen; Patrycja Gazinska; Sarah E Pinder; Daniel C Alexander; David J Hawkes Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2016-12-21 Impact factor: 4.044