Elke Hauth1, Daniela Halbritter2, Horst Jaeger1, Horst Hohmuth3, Meinrad Beer4. 1. 1 Radiologische Praxis , Ulm , Germany. 2. 2 University Hospital , Ulm , Germany. 3. 3 Uropraxis , Ulm , Germany. 4. 4 Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital , Ulm , Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the diagnostic value of semi-quantitative and quantitative parameters of three functional techniques in multiparametric (mp)-MRI of the prostate. METHODS: Mp-MRI was performed in 110 patients with suspicion of prostate cancer (PCA) before transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided core biopsy. Peak-enhancement, initial and post-initial enhancement, initial area under gadolinium curve, Ktrans (forward rate constant), Kep (efflux rate constant), Ve (extracellular volume), ADC (apparent diffusion coefficient) and MR spectroscopy ratio were obtained for malignant and benign lesions. For iAUGC, Ktrans, Kep and Ve we evaluated median, mean and the difference (Diff) between mean and median. For ADC we evaluated mean, median, Diff between mean and median, and min. In addition, we evaluated these parameters in dependence of Gleason score in PCA. Receiver operating characteristic analysis and area under curve (AUC) were determined. RESULTS: ADC min and Kep Diff were the best predictors of malignancy in all lesions (AUC: 0.765). ADC min was the best predictor of malignancy for lesions in peripheral zone (PZ) (AUC: 0.7506) and Kep Diff was the best predictor of malignancy for lesions in transitional zone (AUC: 0.7514). Peak enhancement was the best parameter in differentiation of low-grade PCA with Gleason score 6 from high-grade PCA with Gleason score ≥ 7 (AUC: 0.7692). CONCLUSION: ADC min can differentiate PCA from benign prostate lesions in PZ. Kep Diff could possibly improve prostate cancer detection in. Peak enhancement might be able to differentiate low grade from high-grade PCA. Semi-quantitative and quantitative parameters may be useful for the functional techniques in mp-MRI. Advances in knowledge: ADC min can differentiate PCA from benign prostate lesions in PZ. Peak enhancement might be able to differentiate low grade from high-grade PCA.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the diagnostic value of semi-quantitative and quantitative parameters of three functional techniques in multiparametric (mp)-MRI of the prostate. METHODS: Mp-MRI was performed in 110 patients with suspicion of prostate cancer (PCA) before transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided core biopsy. Peak-enhancement, initial and post-initial enhancement, initial area under gadolinium curve, Ktrans (forward rate constant), Kep (efflux rate constant), Ve (extracellular volume), ADC (apparent diffusion coefficient) and MR spectroscopy ratio were obtained for malignant and benign lesions. For iAUGC, Ktrans, Kep and Ve we evaluated median, mean and the difference (Diff) between mean and median. For ADC we evaluated mean, median, Diff between mean and median, and min. In addition, we evaluated these parameters in dependence of Gleason score in PCA. Receiver operating characteristic analysis and area under curve (AUC) were determined. RESULTS: ADC min and Kep Diff were the best predictors of malignancy in all lesions (AUC: 0.765). ADC min was the best predictor of malignancy for lesions in peripheral zone (PZ) (AUC: 0.7506) and Kep Diff was the best predictor of malignancy for lesions in transitional zone (AUC: 0.7514). Peak enhancement was the best parameter in differentiation of low-grade PCA with Gleason score 6 from high-grade PCA with Gleason score ≥ 7 (AUC: 0.7692). CONCLUSION: ADC min can differentiate PCA from benign prostate lesions in PZ. Kep Diff could possibly improve prostate cancer detection in. Peak enhancement might be able to differentiate low grade from high-grade PCA. Semi-quantitative and quantitative parameters may be useful for the functional techniques in mp-MRI. Advances in knowledge: ADC min can differentiate PCA from benign prostate lesions in PZ. Peak enhancement might be able to differentiate low grade from high-grade PCA.
Authors: Caroline M A Hoeks; Jelle O Barentsz; Thomas Hambrock; Derya Yakar; Diederik M Somford; Stijn W T P J Heijmink; Tom W J Scheenen; Pieter C Vos; Henkjan Huisman; Inge M van Oort; J Alfred Witjes; Arend Heerschap; Jurgen J Fütterer Journal: Radiology Date: 2011-10 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Ferdinand A van Dorsten; Marinette van der Graaf; Marc R W Engelbrecht; Geert J L H van Leenders; Albert Verhofstad; Mark Rijpkema; Jean J M C H de la Rosette; Jelle O Barentsz; Arend Heerschap Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2004-08 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Iclal Ocak; Marcelino Bernardo; Greg Metzger; Tristan Barrett; Peter Pinto; Paul S Albert; Peter L Choyke Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Yahui Peng; Yulei Jiang; Cheng Yang; Jeremy Bancroft Brown; Tatjana Antic; Ila Sethi; Christine Schmid-Tannwald; Maryellen L Giger; Scott E Eggener; Aytekin Oto Journal: Radiology Date: 2013-02-07 Impact factor: 11.105