W C Lin1,2, A C Westphalen3,4, G E Silva5, S Chodraui Filho6, R B Reis7, V F Muglia6. 1. Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco, 505, Parnassus Av., San Francisco, CA, 94143, USA. 2. School of Medicine, Department of Radiology, China Medical University, Shenyang, China. 3. Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco, 505, Parnassus Av., San Francisco, CA, 94143, USA. AntonioCarlos.Westphalen@ucsf.edu. 4. Departments of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, and Urology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, USA. AntonioCarlos.Westphalen@ucsf.edu. 5. Department of Pathology, Ribeirão Preto School of Medicine, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil. 6. Division of Radiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Ribeirão Preto School of Medicine, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil. 7. Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Ribeirão Preto School of Medicine, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the PI-RADS V2 scores, ADC histogram-derived parameters, and their combination for the diagnosis of clinically significant peripheral zone prostate cancer (PCa). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The IRB approved this retrospective study of 47 men who underwent 1.5 Tesla endorectal prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Informed consent was waived. Two readers identified and scored MRI lesions using PI-RADS V2. Their mean, median, 10th, 25th, 75th percentile ADC values, and normalized ratio were also calculated. Multilevel logistic regression and receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses assessed their diagnostic performance. Clinically significant PCa was defined as tumor volume over 0.5 cc and Gleason grade of 4 or 5 on prostatectomy. RESULTS: The area under the ROC curve (A z) of the overall and diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) PI-RADS V2 scores were 0.69 and 0.84 (reader-1), and 0.68 and 0.73 (reader-2). The A z of ADC parameters ranged from 0.68 to 0.75 for both readers. Compared to other predictors, DWI PI-RADS V2 yielded the highest A z for identification of significant cancer; but, except for reader-1 75th percentile ADC, the differences were not statistically significant (P > 0.05). Adding ADC parameters to PI-RADS V2 scores did not improve their diagnostic ability. CONCLUSION: DWI PI-RADS V2 score may a better predictor of clinically significant PCa than the overall PI-RADS V2 score, but its diagnostic performance was not significantly improved by the addition of objective ADC value measurements.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the PI-RADS V2 scores, ADC histogram-derived parameters, and their combination for the diagnosis of clinically significant peripheral zone prostate cancer (PCa). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The IRB approved this retrospective study of 47 men who underwent 1.5 Tesla endorectal prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Informed consent was waived. Two readers identified and scored MRI lesions using PI-RADS V2. Their mean, median, 10th, 25th, 75th percentile ADC values, and normalized ratio were also calculated. Multilevel logistic regression and receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses assessed their diagnostic performance. Clinically significant PCa was defined as tumor volume over 0.5 cc and Gleason grade of 4 or 5 on prostatectomy. RESULTS: The area under the ROC curve (A z) of the overall and diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) PI-RADS V2 scores were 0.69 and 0.84 (reader-1), and 0.68 and 0.73 (reader-2). The A z of ADC parameters ranged from 0.68 to 0.75 for both readers. Compared to other predictors, DWI PI-RADS V2 yielded the highest A z for identification of significant cancer; but, except for reader-1 75th percentile ADC, the differences were not statistically significant (P > 0.05). Adding ADC parameters to PI-RADS V2 scores did not improve their diagnostic ability. CONCLUSION: DWI PI-RADS V2 score may a better predictor of clinically significant PCa than the overall PI-RADS V2 score, but its diagnostic performance was not significantly improved by the addition of objective ADC value measurements.
Entities:
Keywords:
Apparent diffusion coefficient; Diffusion-weighted imaging; Magnetic resonance imaging; Prostate cancer
Authors: Elmira Hassanzadeh; Francesco Alessandrino; Olutayo I Olubiyi; Daniel I Glazer; Robert V Mulkern; Andriy Fedorov; Clare M Tempany; Fiona M Fennessy Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2018-05
Authors: Antonio C Westphalen; Charles E McCulloch; Jordan M Anaokar; Sandeep Arora; Nimrod S Barashi; Jelle O Barentsz; Tharakeswara K Bathala; Leonardo K Bittencourt; Michael T Booker; Vaughn G Braxton; Peter R Carroll; David D Casalino; Silvia D Chang; Fergus V Coakley; Ravjot Dhatt; Steven C Eberhardt; Bryan R Foster; Adam T Froemming; Jurgen J Fütterer; Dhakshina M Ganeshan; Mark R Gertner; Lori Mankowski Gettle; Sangeet Ghai; Rajan T Gupta; Michael E Hahn; Roozbeh Houshyar; Candice Kim; Chan Kyo Kim; Chandana Lall; Daniel J A Margolis; Stephen E McRae; Aytekin Oto; Rosaleen B Parsons; Nayana U Patel; Peter A Pinto; Thomas J Polascik; Benjamin Spilseth; Juliana B Starcevich; Varaha S Tammisetti; Samir S Taneja; Baris Turkbey; Sadhna Verma; John F Ward; Christopher A Warlick; Andrew R Weinberger; Jinxing Yu; Ronald J Zagoria; Andrew B Rosenkrantz Journal: Radiology Date: 2020-04-21 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Antonio C Westphalen; Farhad Fazel; Hao Nguyen; Miguel Cabarrus; Katryana Hanley-Knutson; Katsuto Shinohara; Peter R Carroll Journal: Int Braz J Urol Date: 2019 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 1.541