Lian-Ming Wu1, Zi-Zhou Zhao1, Xiao-Xi Chen1, Qing Lu1, Shi-Teng Suo1, Qiang Liu2, Jiani Hu3, E Mark Haccke3, Jian-Rong Xu1. 1. 1 Department of Radiology, Renji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China. 2. 2 Department of Pathology, Renji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China. 3. 3 Department of Radiology, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the diagnostic value of T2(*) mapping compared with apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) mapping in the characterization of low-grade (Gleason score, ≤6) vs intermediate-grade and high-grade (Gleason score ≥7) prostate cancer (PCa). METHODS: 62 patients who underwent MRI before prostatectomy were evaluated. Two readers independently scored the probabilities of tumours in 12 regions of the prostate on T2(*) and ADC images. The data were divided into two groups, i.e. low- vs intermediate- and high-grade PCa, and correlated with the histopathological results. The diagnostic performance parameters, areas under the receiver-operating characteristic curves and interreader agreements were calculated. RESULTS: For Reader 2, ADC mapping exhibited a greater accuracy for intermediate-grade PCas than for high-grade PCas (0.77 vs 0.83, p < 0.05). For both readers, T2(*) mapping exhibited a greater accuracy for intermediate-grade PCas than for high-grade PCas (Reader 1, 0.86 vs 0.81; Reader 2, 0.83 vs 0.78; p < 0.05). The areas under the curve of T2(*) mappings were greater than those of the ADC mappings for the intermediate- and high-grade PCas (Reader 1, 0.83 vs 0.78; Reader 2, 0.80 vs 0.75; p < 0.05) but not for the low-grade PCas (Reader 1, 0.86 vs 0.84; Reader 2, 0.83 vs 0.82; p > 0.05). The weighted κ value of T2(*) mapping was 0.59. CONCLUSION: T2(*) mapping improves the accuracy of the characterization of intermediate- and high-grade PCas but not low-grade PCas compared with ADC mapping. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: T2(*) mapping exhibited greater diagnostic accuracy than ADC mapping in the characterization of intermediate- and high-grade PCas. T2(*) mapping exhibited limited value in the characterization of low-grade PCa.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the diagnostic value of T2(*) mapping compared with apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) mapping in the characterization of low-grade (Gleason score, ≤6) vs intermediate-grade and high-grade (Gleason score ≥7) prostate cancer (PCa). METHODS: 62 patients who underwent MRI before prostatectomy were evaluated. Two readers independently scored the probabilities of tumours in 12 regions of the prostate on T2(*) and ADC images. The data were divided into two groups, i.e. low- vs intermediate- and high-grade PCa, and correlated with the histopathological results. The diagnostic performance parameters, areas under the receiver-operating characteristic curves and interreader agreements were calculated. RESULTS: For Reader 2, ADC mapping exhibited a greater accuracy for intermediate-grade PCas than for high-grade PCas (0.77 vs 0.83, p < 0.05). For both readers, T2(*) mapping exhibited a greater accuracy for intermediate-grade PCas than for high-grade PCas (Reader 1, 0.86 vs 0.81; Reader 2, 0.83 vs 0.78; p < 0.05). The areas under the curve of T2(*) mappings were greater than those of the ADC mappings for the intermediate- and high-grade PCas (Reader 1, 0.83 vs 0.78; Reader 2, 0.80 vs 0.75; p < 0.05) but not for the low-grade PCas (Reader 1, 0.86 vs 0.84; Reader 2, 0.83 vs 0.82; p > 0.05). The weighted κ value of T2(*) mapping was 0.59. CONCLUSION: T2(*) mapping improves the accuracy of the characterization of intermediate- and high-grade PCas but not low-grade PCas compared with ADC mapping. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: T2(*) mapping exhibited greater diagnostic accuracy than ADC mapping in the characterization of intermediate- and high-grade PCas. T2(*) mapping exhibited limited value in the characterization of low-grade PCa.
Authors: Mies A Korteweg; Jaco J M Zwanenburg; Johannes M Hoogduin; Maurice A A J van den Bosch; Paul J van Diest; Richard van Hillegersberg; Marinus J C Eijkemans; Willem P T M Mali; Peter R Luijten; Wouter B Veldhuis Journal: Radiology Date: 2011-06-14 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Baris Turkbey; Vijay P Shah; Yuxi Pang; Marcelino Bernardo; Sheng Xu; Jochen Kruecker; Julia Locklin; Angelo A Baccala; Ardeshir R Rastinehad; Maria J Merino; Joanna H Shih; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto; Peter L Choyke Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-12-21 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Courtney A Woodfield; Glenn A Tung; David J Grand; John A Pezzullo; Jason T Machan; Joseph F Renzulli Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Thiele Kobus; Pieter C Vos; Thomas Hambrock; Maarten De Rooij; Christina A Hulsbergen-Van de Kaa; Jelle O Barentsz; Arend Heerschap; Tom W J Scheenen Journal: Radiology Date: 2012-07-27 Impact factor: 11.105