Sung Yoon Park1, Su-Jin Shin2,3, Dae Chul Jung1, Nam Hoon Cho2, Young Deuk Choi4, Koon Ho Rha4, Sung Joon Hong4, Young Taik Oh5. 1. Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiological Science, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, 50 Yonsei-ro, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, 120-752, Republic of Korea. 2. Department of Pathology, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea. 3. Department of Pathology, Hanyang University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea. 4. Department of Urology, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea. 5. Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiological Science, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, 50 Yonsei-ro, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, 120-752, Republic of Korea. oytaik@yuhs.ac.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine whether apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) ratio aids reliable interpretation of diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) for prostate cancer (PCa). METHODS: Seventy-six consecutive patients with PCa who underwent DWI and surgery were included. Based on pathologic tumour location, two readers independently performed DWI scoring according to the revised Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADSv2). ADC ratios of benign to cancerous prostatic tissue were then measured independently and compared between cases showing concordant and discordant DWI scores ≥4. Area under the curve (AUC) and threshold of ADC ratio were analyzed for DWI scores ≥4. RESULTS: The rate of inter-reader disagreement for DWI score ≥4 was 11.8% (9/76). ADC ratios were higher in concordant vs. discordant DWI scores ≥4 (median, 1.7 vs. 1.1-1.2; p < 0.001). For DWI scores ≥4, the AUCs of ADC ratios were 0.970 for reader 1 and 0.959 for reader 2. In patients with an ADC ratio >1.3, the rate of inter-reader disagreement for DWI score ≥4 decreased to 5.9-6.0%. An ADC ratio >1.3 yielded 100% (reader 1, 54/54; reader 2, 51/51) positive predictive value for clinically significant cancer. CONCLUSION: ADC ratios may be useful for reliable interpretation of DWI score ≥4 in PI-RADSv2. KEY POINTS: • The ADC ratio correlated positively with DWI score of PI-RADSv2. • ADC ratio >1.3 was associated with concordant interpretation of DWI score ≥4. • ADC ratio >1.3 was associated with high PPV for clinically significant cancer. • ADC ratio is useful for reliable interpretation of DWI scoring in PI-RADSv2.
OBJECTIVES: To determine whether apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) ratio aids reliable interpretation of diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) for prostate cancer (PCa). METHODS: Seventy-six consecutive patients with PCa who underwent DWI and surgery were included. Based on pathologic tumour location, two readers independently performed DWI scoring according to the revised Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADSv2). ADC ratios of benign to cancerous prostatic tissue were then measured independently and compared between cases showing concordant and discordant DWI scores ≥4. Area under the curve (AUC) and threshold of ADC ratio were analyzed for DWI scores ≥4. RESULTS: The rate of inter-reader disagreement for DWI score ≥4 was 11.8% (9/76). ADC ratios were higher in concordant vs. discordant DWI scores ≥4 (median, 1.7 vs. 1.1-1.2; p < 0.001). For DWI scores ≥4, the AUCs of ADC ratios were 0.970 for reader 1 and 0.959 for reader 2. In patients with an ADC ratio >1.3, the rate of inter-reader disagreement for DWI score ≥4 decreased to 5.9-6.0%. An ADC ratio >1.3 yielded 100% (reader 1, 54/54; reader 2, 51/51) positive predictive value for clinically significant cancer. CONCLUSION: ADC ratios may be useful for reliable interpretation of DWI score ≥4 in PI-RADSv2. KEY POINTS: • The ADC ratio correlated positively with DWI score of PI-RADSv2. • ADC ratio >1.3 was associated with concordant interpretation of DWI score ≥4. • ADC ratio >1.3 was associated with high PPV for clinically significant cancer. • ADC ratio is useful for reliable interpretation of DWI scoring in PI-RADSv2.
Entities:
Keywords:
Apparent diffusion coefficient; Diffusion-weighted imaging; MRI; PI-RADS; Prostate cancer
Authors: Ali Sami Kıvrak; Yahya Paksoy; Cengiz Erol; Mustafa Koplay; Seda Özbek; Fatih Kara Journal: Diagn Interv Radiol Date: 2013 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 2.630
Authors: Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Luke A Ginocchio; Daniel Cornfeld; Adam T Froemming; Rajan T Gupta; Baris Turkbey; Antonio C Westphalen; James S Babb; Daniel J Margolis Journal: Radiology Date: 2016-04-01 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Osama M Zaytoun; Andrew J Stephenson; Khaled Fareed; Ahmed El-Shafei; Tianming Gao; David Levy; J Stephen Jones Journal: BJU Int Date: 2012-03-15 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Berrend G Muller; Joanna H Shih; Sandeep Sankineni; Jamie Marko; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Arvin Koruthu George; Jean J M C H de la Rosette; Maria J Merino; Bradford J Wood; Peter Pinto; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey Journal: Radiology Date: 2015-06-18 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Thomas Hambrock; Diederik M Somford; Henkjan J Huisman; Inge M van Oort; J Alfred Witjes; Christina A Hulsbergen-van de Kaa; Thomas Scheenen; Jelle O Barentsz Journal: Radiology Date: 2011-05 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Sonia Gaur; Stephanie Harmon; Lauren Rosenblum; Matthew D Greer; Sherif Mehralivand; Mehmet Coskun; Maria J Merino; Bradford J Wood; Joanna H Shih; Peter A Pinto; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2018-05-07 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Tan B Nguyen; Alexander Ushinsky; Albert Yang; Michael Nguyentat; Sara Fardin; Edward Uchio; Chandana Lall; Thomas Lee; Roozbeh Houshyar Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2018-06-21 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Borna K Barth; Niels J Rupp; Alexander Cornelius; Daniel Nanz; Rainer Grobholz; Martin Schmidtpeter; Peter J Wild; Daniel Eberli; Olivio F Donati Journal: Curr Urol Date: 2019-03-08
Authors: Armando Stabile; Francesco Giganti; Veeru Kasivisvanathan; Gianluca Giannarini; Caroline M Moore; Anwar R Padhani; Valeria Panebianco; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Georg Salomon; Baris Turkbey; Geert Villeirs; Jelle O Barentsz Journal: Eur Urol Oncol Date: 2020-03-17