Tsutomu Tamada1,2, Chenchan Huang1, Justin M Ream1, Myles Taffel1, Samir S Taneja3, Andrew B Rosenkrantz1. 1. 1 Department of Radiology, NYU Langone Medical Center, 550 First Ave, New York, NY 10016. 2. 2 Department of Radiology, Kawasaki Medical School, Okayama, Japan. 3. 3 Department of Urology, Division of Urologic Oncology, NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, NY.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the reproducibility and diagnostic performance of 2D and 3D ROIs for prostate apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) measurements. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study included 56 patients with prostate cancer undergoing 3-T MRI including DWI (b = 50 and 1000 s/mm2) before radical prostatectomy. Histologic findings from prostatectomy specimens were reviewed to denote each patient's dominant tumor and a benign region with visually decreased ADC. Three readers independently measured the ADCs of both areas using an ROI placed on a single slice through the lesion (2D) and an ROI encompassing all slices through the lesion (3D). Readers repeated measurements after 3 weeks. Assessment included Bland-Altman analysis (coefficient of repeatability [CR] in which lower values indicated higher reliability) and ROC analysis. RESULTS: For intrareader variability, the CRs across readers for all ROIs were 9.9% for 2D and 9.3% for 3D. For tumor ROIs the CRs were 10.6% for 2D and 9.6% for 3D. For interreader variability, the CRs across readers for all ROIs were 17.1% for 2D and 20.5% for 3D and for tumor ROIs were 17.9% for 2D and 22.2% for 3D. For combined reader data, the AUCs for benign and malignant findings were 0.77 for 2D and 0.78 for 3D (p = 0.146). For differentiating Gleason score (GS) 3 + 3 from GS > 3 + 3 tumors, the AUCs were 0.92 for 2D and 0.92 for 3D ROIs (p = 0.649). For differentiating GS ≤ 3 + 4 from GS ≥ 4 + 3 tumors, the AUCs were 0.70 for 2D and 0.67 for 3D ROIs (p = 0.004). CONCLUSION: Use of a 3D ROI did not improve intrareader or interreader reproducibility or diagnostic performance compared with use of a 2D ROI for prostate ADC measurements. Interreader reproducibility of 2D ROIs was suboptimal nonetheless.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the reproducibility and diagnostic performance of 2D and 3D ROIs for prostate apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) measurements. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study included 56 patients with prostate cancer undergoing 3-T MRI including DWI (b = 50 and 1000 s/mm2) before radical prostatectomy. Histologic findings from prostatectomy specimens were reviewed to denote each patient's dominant tumor and a benign region with visually decreased ADC. Three readers independently measured the ADCs of both areas using an ROI placed on a single slice through the lesion (2D) and an ROI encompassing all slices through the lesion (3D). Readers repeated measurements after 3 weeks. Assessment included Bland-Altman analysis (coefficient of repeatability [CR] in which lower values indicated higher reliability) and ROC analysis. RESULTS: For intrareader variability, the CRs across readers for all ROIs were 9.9% for 2D and 9.3% for 3D. For tumor ROIs the CRs were 10.6% for 2D and 9.6% for 3D. For interreader variability, the CRs across readers for all ROIs were 17.1% for 2D and 20.5% for 3D and for tumor ROIs were 17.9% for 2D and 22.2% for 3D. For combined reader data, the AUCs for benign and malignant findings were 0.77 for 2D and 0.78 for 3D (p = 0.146). For differentiating Gleason score (GS) 3 + 3 from GS > 3 + 3 tumors, the AUCs were 0.92 for 2D and 0.92 for 3D ROIs (p = 0.649). For differentiating GS ≤ 3 + 4 from GS ≥ 4 + 3 tumors, the AUCs were 0.70 for 2D and 0.67 for 3D ROIs (p = 0.004). CONCLUSION: Use of a 3D ROI did not improve intrareader or interreader reproducibility or diagnostic performance compared with use of a 2D ROI for prostate ADC measurements. Interreader reproducibility of 2D ROIs was suboptimal nonetheless.
Authors: Ely R Felker; Steven S Raman; Sepideh Shakeri; Sohrab A Mirak; Amirhossein M Bajgiran; Lorna Kwan; Pooria Khoshnoodi; Fuad F ElKhoury; Daniel J A Margolis; David Karow; David S K Lu; Nate White; Leonard S Marks Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2019-04-30 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Michael A Boss; Bradley S Snyder; Eunhee Kim; Dena Flamini; Sarah Englander; Karthik M Sundaram; Naveen Gumpeni; Suzanne L Palmer; Haesun Choi; Adam T Froemming; Thorsten Persigehl; Matthew S Davenport; Dariya Malyarenko; Thomas L Chenevert; Mark A Rosen Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2022-02-10 Impact factor: 5.119
Authors: Hiroaki Takahashi; Kotaro Yoshida; Akira Kawashima; Nam Ju Lee; Adam T Froemming; Daniel A Adamo; Ashish Khandelwal; Candice W Bolan; Matthew T Heller; Robert P Hartman; Bohyun Kim; Kenneth A Philbrick; Rickey E Carter; Lance A Mynderse; Mitchell R Humphreys; Jason C Cai; Naoki Takahashi Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-05-23 Impact factor: 3.752
Authors: Sarah M Ayyad; Mohamed A Badawy; Mohamed Shehata; Ahmed Alksas; Ali Mahmoud; Mohamed Abou El-Ghar; Mohammed Ghazal; Moumen El-Melegy; Nahla B Abdel-Hamid; Labib M Labib; H Arafat Ali; Ayman El-Baz Journal: Sensors (Basel) Date: 2022-02-26 Impact factor: 3.576