Ken Kikuchi1, Takeshi Shigihara1, Yuko Hashimoto2, Masayuki Miyajima1, Nobuhiro Haga3, Yoshiyuki Kojima3, Fumio Shishido1. 1. Departments of Radiology, Division of Medicine, Fukushima Medical University, School of Medicine. 2. Departments of Diagnostic Pathology, Division of Medicine, Fukushima Medical University, School of Medicine. 3. Departments of Urology, Division of Medicine, Fukushima Medical University, School of Medicine.
Abstract
AIMS: To evaluate the relationship between the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) value for bladder cancer and the recurrence/progression risk of post-transurethral resection (TUR). METHODS: Forty-one patients with initial and non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer underwent MRI from 2009 to 2012. Two radiologists measured ADC values. A pathologist calculated the recurrence/progression scores, and risk was classified based on the scores. Pearson's correlation was used to analyze the correlations of ADC value with each score and with each risk group, and the optimal cut-off value was established based on receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. Furthermore, the relationship between actual recurrence / progression of cases and ADC values was examined by Unpaird U test. RESULTS: There were significant correlations between ADC value and the recurrence score as well as the progression score (P<0.01, P<0.01, respectively). There were also significant correlations between ADC value and the recurrence risk group as well as progression risk group (P=0.042, P<0.01, respectively). The ADC cut-off value on ROC analysis was 1.365 (sensitivity 100%; specificity 97.4%) for the low and intermediate recurrence risk groups, 1.024 (sensitivity 47.4%; specificity 100%) for the intermediate and high recurrence risk groups, 1.252 (sensitivity 83.3%; specificity 81.3%) for the low and intermediate progression risk groups, and 0.955 (sensitivity 87.5%; specificity 63.2%) between the intermediate and high progression risk groups. The difference between the ADC values of the recurrence and nonrecurrence group in Unpaired t test was significant (P<0.05). CONCLUSION: ADC on MRI in bladder cancer could potentially be useful, non-invasive measurement for estimating the risks of recurrence and progression.
AIMS: To evaluate the relationship between the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) value for bladder cancer and the recurrence/progression risk of post-transurethral resection (TUR). METHODS: Forty-one patients with initial and non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer underwent MRI from 2009 to 2012. Two radiologists measured ADC values. A pathologist calculated the recurrence/progression scores, and risk was classified based on the scores. Pearson's correlation was used to analyze the correlations of ADC value with each score and with each risk group, and the optimal cut-off value was established based on receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. Furthermore, the relationship between actual recurrence / progression of cases and ADC values was examined by Unpaird U test. RESULTS: There were significant correlations between ADC value and the recurrence score as well as the progression score (P<0.01, P<0.01, respectively). There were also significant correlations between ADC value and the recurrence risk group as well as progression risk group (P=0.042, P<0.01, respectively). The ADC cut-off value on ROC analysis was 1.365 (sensitivity 100%; specificity 97.4%) for the low and intermediate recurrence risk groups, 1.024 (sensitivity 47.4%; specificity 100%) for the intermediate and high recurrence risk groups, 1.252 (sensitivity 83.3%; specificity 81.3%) for the low and intermediate progression risk groups, and 0.955 (sensitivity 87.5%; specificity 63.2%) between the intermediate and high progression risk groups. The difference between the ADC values of the recurrence and nonrecurrence group in Unpaired t test was significant (P<0.05). CONCLUSION: ADC on MRI in bladder cancer could potentially be useful, non-invasive measurement for estimating the risks of recurrence and progression.
Authors: A I García-Pérez; E A López-Beltrán; P Klüner; J Luque; P Ballesteros; S Cerdán Journal: Arch Biochem Biophys Date: 1999-02-15 Impact factor: 4.013
Authors: Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Benjamin E Niver; Erin F Fitzgerald; James S Babb; Hersh Chandarana; Jonathan Melamed Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2010-11 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: G Manenti; M Di Roma; S Mancino; D A Bartolucci; G Palmieri; R Mastrangeli; R Miano; E Squillaci; G Simonetti Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2008-04-02 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Adam S Kibel; Farrokh Dehdashti; Matthew D Katz; Aleksandra P Klim; Robert L Grubb; Peter A Humphrey; Cary Siegel; Dengfeng Cao; Feng Gao; Barry A Siegel Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-08-03 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Ahmed El-Assmy; Mohamed E Abou-El-Ghar; Ahmed Mosbah; Ahmed R El-Nahas; Huda F Refaie; Ihab A Hekal; Tarek El-Diasty; El Housseiny Ibrahiem Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2009-02-27 Impact factor: 5.315