Francesco Alessandrino1,2, Mehdi Taghipour3, Elmira Hassanzadeh3,4, Alireza Ziaei3, Mark Vangel3, Andriy Fedorov3, Clare M Tempany3, Fiona M Fennessy3,5. 1. Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 75 Francis Street, Boston, MA, 02215, USA. falessandrino@bwh.harvard.edu. 2. Department of Imaging, Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. falessandrino@bwh.harvard.edu. 3. Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 75 Francis Street, Boston, MA, 02215, USA. 4. Department of Radiology, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA. 5. Department of Imaging, Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the predictive roles of qualitative (PI-RADSv2) and quantitative assessment (ADC metrics), in differentiating Gleason pattern (GP) 3 + 4 from the more aggressive GP 4 + 3 prostate cancer (PCa) using radical prostatectomy (RP) specimen as the reference standard. METHODS: We retrospectively identified treatment-naïve peripheral (PZ) and transitional zone (TZ) Gleason Score 7 PCa patients who underwent multiparametric 3T prostate MRI (DWI with b value of 0,1400 and where unavailable, 0,500) and subsequent RP from 2011 to 2015. For each lesion identified on MRI, a PI-RADSv2 score was assigned by a radiologist blinded to pathology data. A PI-RADSv2 score ≤ 3 was defined as "low risk," a PI-RADSv2 score ≥ 4 as "high risk" for clinically significant PCa. Mean tumor ADC (ADCT), ADC of adjacent normal tissue (ADCN), and ADCratio (ADCT/ADCN) were calculated. Stepwise regression analysis using tumor location, ADCT and ADCratio, b value, low vs. high PI-RADSv2 score was performed to differentiate GP 3 + 4 from 4 + 3. RESULTS: 119 out of 645 cases initially identified met eligibility requirements. 76 lesions were GP 3 + 4, 43 were 4 + 3. ADCratio was significantly different between the two GP groups (p = 0.001). PI-RADSv2 score ("low" vs. "high") was not significantly different between the two GP groups (p = 0.17). Regression analysis selected ADCT (p = 0.03) and ADCratio (p = 0.0007) as best predictors to differentiate GP 4 + 3 from 3 + 4. Estimated sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of the predictive model in differentiating GP 4 + 3 from 3 + 4 were 37, 82, and 66%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: ADC metrics could differentiate GP 3 + 4 from 4 + 3 PCa with high specificity and moderate accuracy while PI-RADSv2, did not differentiate between these patterns.
PURPOSE: To compare the predictive roles of qualitative (PI-RADSv2) and quantitative assessment (ADC metrics), in differentiating Gleason pattern (GP) 3 + 4 from the more aggressive GP 4 + 3 prostate cancer (PCa) using radical prostatectomy (RP) specimen as the reference standard. METHODS: We retrospectively identified treatment-naïve peripheral (PZ) and transitional zone (TZ) Gleason Score 7 PCa patients who underwent multiparametric 3T prostate MRI (DWI with b value of 0,1400 and where unavailable, 0,500) and subsequent RP from 2011 to 2015. For each lesion identified on MRI, a PI-RADSv2 score was assigned by a radiologist blinded to pathology data. A PI-RADSv2 score ≤ 3 was defined as "low risk," a PI-RADSv2 score ≥ 4 as "high risk" for clinically significant PCa. Mean tumor ADC (ADCT), ADC of adjacent normal tissue (ADCN), and ADCratio (ADCT/ADCN) were calculated. Stepwise regression analysis using tumor location, ADCT and ADCratio, b value, low vs. high PI-RADSv2 score was performed to differentiate GP 3 + 4 from 4 + 3. RESULTS: 119 out of 645 cases initially identified met eligibility requirements. 76 lesions were GP 3 + 4, 43 were 4 + 3. ADCratio was significantly different between the two GP groups (p = 0.001). PI-RADSv2 score ("low" vs. "high") was not significantly different between the two GP groups (p = 0.17). Regression analysis selected ADCT (p = 0.03) and ADCratio (p = 0.0007) as best predictors to differentiate GP 4 + 3 from 3 + 4. Estimated sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of the predictive model in differentiating GP 4 + 3 from 3 + 4 were 37, 82, and 66%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: ADC metrics could differentiate GP 3 + 4 from 4 + 3 PCa with high specificity and moderate accuracy while PI-RADSv2, did not differentiate between these patterns.
Entities:
Keywords:
Apparent diffusion coefficient; Diffusion-weighted imaging; Gleason score; Magnetic resonance imaging; PI-RADSv2; Prostate cancer
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