Elmira Hassanzadeh1,2, Francesco Alessandrino3,4, Olutayo I Olubiyi1,5, Daniel I Glazer1, Robert V Mulkern6, Andriy Fedorov1, Clare M Tempany1, Fiona M Fennessy1,7. 1. Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 75 Francis Street, Boston, MA, 02115, USA. 2. Department of Surgery, University of Illinois at Chicago, 1200 W Harrison St, Chicago, IL, 60607, USA. 3. Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 75 Francis Street, Boston, MA, 02115, USA. falessandrino@bwh.harvard.edu. 4. Department of Imaging, Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA. falessandrino@bwh.harvard.edu. 5. Department of Radiology, Mercy Catholic Medical Center, 1500 Lansdowne Avenue, Darby, PA, USA. 6. Department of Radiology, Boston Children's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 300 Longwood Ave, Boston, MA, USA. 7. Department of Imaging, Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare diagnostic performance of PI-RADSv2 with ADC parameters to identify clinically significant prostate cancer (csPC) and to determine the impact of csPC definitions on diagnostic performance of ADC and PI-RADSv2. METHODS: We retrospectively identified treatment-naïve pathology-proven peripheral zone PC patients who underwent 3T prostate MRI, using high b-value diffusion-weighted imaging from 2011 to 2015. Using 3D slicer, areas of suspected tumor (T) and normal tissue (N) on ADC (b = 0, 1400) were outlined volumetrically. Mean ADCT, mean ADCN, ADCratio (ADCT/ADCN) were calculated. PI-RADSv2 was assigned. Three csPC definitions were used: (A) Gleason score (GS) ≥ 4 + 3; (B) GS ≥ 3 + 4; (C) MRI-based tumor volume >0.5 cc. Performances of ADC parameters and PI-RADSv2 in identifying csPC were measured using nonparametric comparison of receiver operating characteristic curves using the area under the curve (AUC). RESULTS: Eighty five cases met eligibility requirements. Diagnostic performances (AUC) in identifying csPC using three definitions were: (A) ADCT (0.83) was higher than PI-RADSv2 (0.65, p = 0.006); (B) ADCT (0.86) was higher than ADCratio (0.68, p < 0.001), and PI-RADSv2 (0.70, p = 0.04); (C) PI-RADSv2 (0.73) performed better than ADCratio (0.56, p = 0.02). ADCT performance was higher when csPC was defined by A or B versus C (p = 0.038 and p = 0.01, respectively). ADCratio performed better when csPC was defined by A versus C (p = 0.01). PI-RADSv2 performance was not affected by csPC definition. CONCLUSIONS: When csPC was defined by GS, ADC parameters provided better csPC discrimination than PI-RADSv2, with ADCT providing best result. When csPC was defined by MRI-calculated volume, PI-RADSv2 provided better discrimination than ADCratio. csPC definition did not affect PI-RADSv2 diagnostic performance.
PURPOSE: To compare diagnostic performance of PI-RADSv2 with ADC parameters to identify clinically significant prostate cancer (csPC) and to determine the impact of csPC definitions on diagnostic performance of ADC and PI-RADSv2. METHODS: We retrospectively identified treatment-naïve pathology-proven peripheral zone PCpatients who underwent 3T prostate MRI, using high b-value diffusion-weighted imaging from 2011 to 2015. Using 3D slicer, areas of suspected tumor (T) and normal tissue (N) on ADC (b = 0, 1400) were outlined volumetrically. Mean ADCT, mean ADCN, ADCratio (ADCT/ADCN) were calculated. PI-RADSv2 was assigned. Three csPC definitions were used: (A) Gleason score (GS) ≥ 4 + 3; (B) GS ≥ 3 + 4; (C) MRI-based tumor volume >0.5 cc. Performances of ADC parameters and PI-RADSv2 in identifying csPC were measured using nonparametric comparison of receiver operating characteristic curves using the area under the curve (AUC). RESULTS: Eighty five cases met eligibility requirements. Diagnostic performances (AUC) in identifying csPC using three definitions were: (A) ADCT (0.83) was higher than PI-RADSv2 (0.65, p = 0.006); (B) ADCT (0.86) was higher than ADCratio (0.68, p < 0.001), and PI-RADSv2 (0.70, p = 0.04); (C) PI-RADSv2 (0.73) performed better than ADCratio (0.56, p = 0.02). ADCT performance was higher when csPC was defined by A or B versus C (p = 0.038 and p = 0.01, respectively). ADCratio performed better when csPC was defined by A versus C (p = 0.01). PI-RADSv2 performance was not affected by csPC definition. CONCLUSIONS: When csPC was defined by GS, ADC parameters provided better csPC discrimination than PI-RADSv2, with ADCT providing best result. When csPC was defined by MRI-calculated volume, PI-RADSv2 provided better discrimination than ADCratio. csPC definition did not affect PI-RADSv2 diagnostic performance.
Entities:
Keywords:
Apparent diffusion coefficient; Diffusion-weighted imaging; Gleason score; Magnetic resonance imaging; PI-RADSv2; Prostate cancer
Authors: Daniel I Glazer; Elmira Hassanzadeh; Andriy Fedorov; Olutayo I Olubiyi; Shayna S Goldberger; Tobias Penzkofer; Trevor A Flood; Paul Masry; Robert V Mulkern; Michelle S Hirsch; Clare M Tempany; Fiona M Fennessy Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2017-03
Authors: Harsh K Agarwal; Francesca V Mertan; Sandeep Sankineni; Marcelino Bernardo; Julien Senegas; Jochen Keupp; Dagane Daar; Maria Merino; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2016-07-07 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Baris Turkbey; Haresh Mani; Omer Aras; Ardeshir R Rastinehad; Vijay Shah; Marcelino Bernardo; Thomas Pohida; Dagane Daar; Compton Benjamin; Yolanda L McKinney; W Marston Linehan; Bradford J Wood; Maria J Merino; Peter L Choyke; Peter A Pinto Journal: J Urol Date: 2012-08-15 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: John V Hegde; Robert V Mulkern; Lawrence P Panych; Fiona M Fennessy; Andriy Fedorov; Stephan E Maier; Clare M C Tempany Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2013-05 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Alexander P Cole; Bjoern J Langbein; Francesco Giganti; Fiona M Fennessy; Clare M Tempany; Mark Emberton Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2021-12-16 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Björn J Langbein; Filip Szczepankiewicz; Carl-Fredrik Westin; Camden Bay; Stephan E Maier; Adam S Kibel; Clare M Tempany; Fiona M Fennessy Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2021-12-01 Impact factor: 6.016