Literature DB >> 26965511

Amide proton transfer (APT) magnetic resonance imaging of prostate cancer: comparison with Gleason scores.

Yukihisa Takayama1, Akihiro Nishie2, Masaaki Sugimoto3,4, Osamu Togao5, Yoshiki Asayama5, Kousei Ishigami5, Yasuhiro Ushijima5, Daisuke Okamoto5, Nobuhiro Fujita5, Akira Yokomizo4, Jochen Keupp6, Hiroshi Honda5.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the utility of amide proton transfer (APT) imaging in estimating the Gleason score (GS) of prostate cancer (Pca).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty-six biopsy-proven cancers were categorized into four groups according to the GS: GS-6 (3 + 3); GS-7 (3 + 4/4 + 3); GS-8 (4 + 4) and GS-9 (4 + 5/5 + 4). APT signal intensities (APT SIs) and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values of each GS group were compared by one-way analysis of variance with Tukey's HSD post hoc test.
RESULTS: The mean and standard deviation of the APT SIs (%) and ADC values (×10(-3) mm(2)/s) were as follows: GS-6, 2.48 ± 0.59 and 1.16 ± 0.26; GS-7, 5.17 ± 0.66 and 0.92 ± 0.18; GS-8, 2.56 ± 0.85 and 0.86 ± 0.17; GS-9, 1.96 ± 0.75 and 0.85 ± 0.18, respectively. The APT SI of the GS-7 group was highest, and there were significant differences between the GS-6 and GS-7 groups and the GS-7 and GS-9 groups (p < 0.05). The ADC value of the GS-6 group was significantly higher than each value of the GS-7, GS-8, and GS-9 groups (p < 0.05), but no significant differences were obtained among the GS-7, GS-8, and GS-9 groups.
CONCLUSION: The mean APT SI in Pca with a GS of 7 was higher than that for the other GS groups.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Amide proton transfer; Apparent diffusion coefficient values; Gleason score; Prostate cancer

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26965511     DOI: 10.1007/s10334-016-0537-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  MAGMA        ISSN: 0968-5243            Impact factor:   2.310


  34 in total

1.  Clinical utility of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values in patients with prostate cancer: can ADC values contribute to assess the aggressiveness of prostate cancer?

Authors:  Yasushi Itou; Katsuyuki Nakanishi; Yoshifumi Narumi; Yasuko Nishizawa; Hideaki Tsukuma
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2011-01       Impact factor: 4.813

2.  Prediction of prognosis for prostatic adenocarcinoma by combined histological grading and clinical staging.

Authors:  D F Gleason; G T Mellinger
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  1974-01       Impact factor: 7.450

3.  Classification of prostatic carcinomas.

Authors:  D F Gleason
Journal:  Cancer Chemother Rep       Date:  1966-03

4.  Upgrading and downgrading of prostate needle biopsy specimens: risk factors and clinical implications.

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

Review 5.  What's new in prostate cancer disease assessment in 2006?

Authors:  Jonathan I Epstein
Journal:  Curr Opin Urol       Date:  2006-05       Impact factor: 2.309

6.  Amide proton transfer imaging of the breast at 3 T: establishing reproducibility and possible feasibility assessing chemotherapy response.

Authors:  Adrienne N Dula; Lori R Arlinghaus; Richard D Dortch; Blake E Dewey; Jennifer G Whisenant; Gregory D Ayers; Thomas E Yankeelov; Seth A Smith
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2012-08-20       Impact factor: 4.668

7.  Prostate cancer: relationships between postbiopsy hemorrhage and tumor detectability at MR diagnosis.

Authors:  Tsutomu Tamada; Teruki Sone; Yoshimasa Jo; Akira Yamamoto; Takenori Yamashita; Naoto Egashira; Shigeki Imai; Masao Fukunaga
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2008-06-06       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 8.  Prostate cancer.

Authors:  Jan-Erik Damber; Gunnar Aus
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2008-05-17       Impact factor: 79.321

9.  MR spectroscopic imaging and diffusion-weighted imaging of prostate cancer with Gleason scores.

Authors:  Rajakumar Nagarajan; Daniel Margolis; Steven Raman; Manoj K Sarma; Ke Sheng; Christopher R King; Gaurav Verma; James Sayre; Robert E Reiter; M Albert Thomas
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2012-05-11       Impact factor: 4.813

10.  Clinical evaluation of a computer-aided diagnosis system for determining cancer aggressiveness in prostate MRI.

Authors:  Geert J S Litjens; Jelle O Barentsz; Nico Karssemeijer; Henkjan J Huisman
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2015-06-10       Impact factor: 5.315

View more
  11 in total

Review 1.  Chemical exchange saturation transfer magnetic resonance imaging and its main and potential applications in pre-clinical and clinical studies.

Authors:  Weiqiang Dou; Chien-Yuan Eddy Lin; Hongyuan Ding; Yong Shen; Carol Dou; Long Qian; Baohong Wen; Bing Wu
Journal:  Quant Imaging Med Surg       Date:  2019-10

Review 2.  Emerging MR methods for improved diagnosis of prostate cancer by multiparametric MRI.

Authors:  Durgesh Kumar Dwivedi; Naranamangalam R Jagannathan
Journal:  MAGMA       Date:  2022-07-22       Impact factor: 2.533

Review 3.  [Chemical exchange saturation transfer (CEST) : Magnetic resonance imaging in diagnostic oncology].

Authors:  N von Knebel Doeberitz; S Maksimovic; L Loi; D Paech
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2021-01       Impact factor: 0.635

4.  Diagnostic evaluation of magnetization transfer and diffusion kurtosis imaging for prostate cancer detection in a re-biopsy population.

Authors:  Tristan Barrett; Mary McLean; Andrew N Priest; Edward M Lawrence; Andrew J Patterson; Brendan C Koo; Ilse Patterson; Anne Y Warren; Andrew Doble; Vincent J Gnanapragasam; Christof Kastner; Ferdia A Gallagher
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2017-12-08       Impact factor: 5.315

5.  Optimization and repeatability of multipool chemical exchange saturation transfer MRI of the prostate at 3.0 T.

Authors:  Vincent Stephen Evans; Francisco Torrealdea; Marilena Rega; Mrishta Brizmohun Appayya; Arash Latifoltojar; Harbir Sidhu; Mina Kim; Aaron Kujawa; Shonit Punwani; Xavier Golay; David Atkinson
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2019-02-15       Impact factor: 4.813

6.  Comparison of Diffusion Kurtosis Imaging and Amide Proton Transfer Imaging in the Diagnosis and Risk Assessment of Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Huijia Yin; Dongdong Wang; Ruifang Yan; Xingxing Jin; Ying Hu; Zhansheng Zhai; Jinhui Duan; Jian Zhang; Kaiyu Wang; Dongming Han
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2021-04-15       Impact factor: 6.244

Review 7.  A Brief History and Future Prospects of CEST MRI in Clinical Non-Brain Tumor Imaging.

Authors:  Tianxin Gao; Chuyue Zou; Yifan Li; Zhenqi Jiang; Xiaoying Tang; Xiaolei Song
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2021-10-26       Impact factor: 5.923

8.  Using amide proton transfer-weighted MRI to non-invasively differentiate mismatch repair deficient and proficient tumors in endometrioid endometrial adenocarcinoma.

Authors:  Yuan Li; Xinyu Liu; Xiaoqi Wang; Chengyu Lin; Yafei Qi; Bo Chen; Hailong Zhou; Qiaoling Wu; Jing Ren; Jia Zhao; Junjun Yang; Yang Xiang; Yonglan He; Zhengyu Jin; Huadan Xue
Journal:  Insights Imaging       Date:  2021-12-11

9.  Baseline Amide Proton Transfer Imaging at 3T Fails to Predict Early Response to Induction Chemotherapy in Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma.

Authors:  Zhou Liu; Liyan Zou; Qian Yang; Long Qian; Tianran Li; Honghong Luo; Canwen Che; Yuanyuan Lei; Peng Chen; Chunyan Qiu; Xin Liu; Yin Wu; Dehong Luo
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2022-02-08       Impact factor: 6.244

10.  Feasibility evaluation of amide proton transfer-weighted imaging in the parotid glands: a strategy to recognize artifacts and measure APT value.

Authors:  Yu Chen; Xiaoqi Wang; Tong Su; Zhentan Xu; Yunting Wang; Zhuhua Zhang; Huadan Xue; Zhizheng Zhuo; Yuanli Zhu; Zhengyu Jin; Tao Zhang
Journal:  Quant Imaging Med Surg       Date:  2021-06
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.