Literature DB >> 27666618

Mean diffusivity discriminates between prostate cancer with grade group 1&2 and grade groups equal to or greater than 3.

M Nezzo1, M G Di Trani2, A Caporale3, R Miano4, A Mauriello5, P Bove4, S Capuani6, G Manenti7.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To test the potential ability of mean diffusivity (MD) and fractional anisotropy (FA) in discriminating between PCa of grade group (GG) 1&2, and GGs≥3.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Diffusion Tensor Imaging (DTI) experiments at 3T in a cohort of 38 patients with PCa (fifty lesions in total) were performed, by using different diffusion weights (b values) up to 2500s/mm(2). Gleason score (GS) and GG data were correlated with DTI parameters (MD and FA) estimated in PCa. The relation between DTI measures and GS was tested by the linear correlation analysis (Pearson's coefficient). One-way analysis of variance to check the statistical significance of the difference between GG 1&2 and GGs 3, 4, 5, ≥3 was used. Results were reported for each of the three b-values ranges: 0-800s/mm(2), 0-1500s/mm(2), 0-2500s/mm(2).
RESULTS: A negative correlation was found between MD and GS. The highest linear correlation was observed when the fit was performed with data acquired in the b-values range 0-2500s/mm(2). MD values were significantly different between GG 1&2 and GG=3 and between GG 1&2 and GG ≥3. Moreover this difference is better defined when high b values (higher than b=800s/mm(2)) are used. The specificity, sensitivity and accuracy in the discrimination between GG 1&2 and GG=3 were: 90%, 66.7% and 82.4%, respectively when MD was estimated in the b-values range 0-2500s/mm(2) while these values were 85%, 58.3% and 78.4% when MD was estimated in the b-values range 0-800s/mm(2). Conversely FA did not discriminate between GG 1&2 and GG ≥3, at any investigated b-values range.
CONCLUSION: This study suggests that MD estimation in PCa, obtained from DTI acquired at high b-values, can contribute to the diagnosis and grading of prostate cancer while FA is not a useful parameter for this purpose.
Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Diffusion tensor imaging; Grade group; MD; Magnetic resonance imaging; Prostate cancer

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27666618     DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2016.08.001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Radiol        ISSN: 0720-048X            Impact factor:   3.528


  4 in total

1.  Diffusion tensor magnetic resonance imaging of breast cancer: associations between diffusion metrics and histological prognostic factors.

Authors:  Jin You Kim; Jin Joo Kim; Suk Kim; Ki Seok Choo; Ahrong Kim; Taewoo Kang; Heesung Park
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2018-04-30       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Radiomic features on MRI enable risk categorization of prostate cancer patients on active surveillance: Preliminary findings.

Authors:  Ahmad Algohary; Satish Viswanath; Rakesh Shiradkar; Soumya Ghose; Shivani Pahwa; Daniel Moses; Ivan Jambor; Ronald Shnier; Maret Böhm; Anne-Maree Haynes; Phillip Brenner; Warick Delprado; James Thompson; Marley Pulbrock; Andrei S Purysko; Sadhna Verma; Lee Ponsky; Phillip Stricker; Anant Madabhushi
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2018-02-22       Impact factor: 4.813

3.  Mapping prostatic microscopic anisotropy using linear and spherical b-tensor encoding: A preliminary study.

Authors:  Markus Nilsson; Greta Eklund; Filip Szczepankiewicz; Mikael Skorpil; Karin Bryskhe; Carl-Fredrik Westin; Claes Lindh; Lennart Blomqvist; Fredrik Jäderling
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2021-05-31       Impact factor: 3.737

4.  Evaluation of Peripheral Zone Prostate Cancer Aggressiveness Using the Ratio of Diffusion Tensor Imaging Measures.

Authors:  Aslihan Onay; Gokhan Ertas; Metin Vural; Omer Acar; Yesim Saglican; Bilgen Coskun; Sergin Akpek
Journal:  Contrast Media Mol Imaging       Date:  2017-09-26       Impact factor: 3.161

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.