Sandeep Hedgire1, Aoife Kilcoyne1, Alexey Tonyushkin1,2, Yun Mao3, Jennifer W Uyeda4, Debra A Gervais1, Mukesh G Harisinghani1. 1. Department of Radiology, Division of Abdominal Imaging, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. 2. Physics Department, University of Massachusetts Boston, Boston, MA, USA. 3. Department of Radiology, The first affiliated hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China. 4. Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate quantitative changes in Diffusion Tensor Magnetic Resonance Tractography in prostate cancer following androgen deprivation and radiation therapy. METHODS: 22 patients with elevated PSA and biopsy proven prostate carcinoma who underwent MRI of the prostate at 1.5 T with an endorectal coil were included. Group A) was the study group (n = 11), participants who underwent androgen deprivation and/or radiation therapy and group B) were Gleason-matched control group (n = 11) participants who did not undergo such therapy. Diffusion weighted images were used to generate three-dimensional (3D) map of fiber tracts from DTI. 3D regions of interest (ROI) were drawn over the tumor and healthy prostatic parenchyma in both groups to record tract number and tract density. Tumor region and normal parenchymal tract densities within each group were compared. RESULTS: Mean tract density in the tumor region and normal parenchyma was 2.3 and 3.3 in study group (tract numbers: 116.6 and 170.2 respectively) and 1.6 and 2.7 in the control group respectively (tract numbers: 252.5 and 346.3 respectively). The difference between these values was statistically significant for the control group (p = 0.0018) but not for the study group (p = 0.11). The difference between the tract numbers of tumor and normal parenchyma appears to narrow following therapy. CONCLUSION: The study demonstrated utility in using tractography as a biomarker in prostate cancer patients post treatment. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Quantitative DTI fiber tractography is a promising imaging biomarker to quantitatively assess treatment response in the setting of post-androgen deprivation and radiation therapy for prostate cancer.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate quantitative changes in Diffusion Tensor Magnetic Resonance Tractography in prostate cancer following androgen deprivation and radiation therapy. METHODS: 22 patients with elevated PSA and biopsy proven prostate carcinoma who underwent MRI of the prostate at 1.5 T with an endorectal coil were included. Group A) was the study group (n = 11), participants who underwent androgen deprivation and/or radiation therapy and group B) were Gleason-matched control group (n = 11) participants who did not undergo such therapy. Diffusion weighted images were used to generate three-dimensional (3D) map of fiber tracts from DTI. 3D regions of interest (ROI) were drawn over the tumor and healthy prostatic parenchyma in both groups to record tract number and tract density. Tumor region and normal parenchymal tract densities within each group were compared. RESULTS: Mean tract density in the tumor region and normal parenchyma was 2.3 and 3.3 in study group (tract numbers: 116.6 and 170.2 respectively) and 1.6 and 2.7 in the control group respectively (tract numbers: 252.5 and 346.3 respectively). The difference between these values was statistically significant for the control group (p = 0.0018) but not for the study group (p = 0.11). The difference between the tract numbers of tumor and normal parenchyma appears to narrow following therapy. CONCLUSION: The study demonstrated utility in using tractography as a biomarker in prostate cancer patients post treatment. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Quantitative DTI fiber tractography is a promising imaging biomarker to quantitatively assess treatment response in the setting of post-androgen deprivation and radiation therapy for prostate cancer.
Authors: Mike Notohamiprodjo; Olaf Dietrich; Wihelm Horger; Annie Horng; Andreas D Helck; Karin A Herrmann; Maximilian F Reiser; Christian Glaser Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2010-05 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Sandeep Hedgire; Alexey Tonyushkin; Aoife Kilcoyne; Jason A Efstathiou; Peter F Hahn; Mukesh Harisinghani Journal: World J Radiol Date: 2016-04-28
Authors: David E Sosnovik; Choukri Mekkaoui; Shuning Huang; Howard H Chen; Guangping Dai; Christian T Stoeck; Soeun Ngoy; Jian Guan; Ruopeng Wang; William J Kostis; Marcel P Jackowski; Van J Wedeen; Sebastian Kozerke; Ronglih Liao Journal: Circulation Date: 2014-03-11 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Darko Pucar; Amita Shukla-Dave; Hedvig Hricak; Chaya S Moskowitz; Kentaro Kuroiwa; Semra Olgac; Lanie E Ebora; Peter T Scardino; Jason A Koutcher; Kristen L Zakian Journal: Radiology Date: 2005-06-21 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Masoom A Haider; Peter Chung; Joan Sweet; Ants Toi; Kartik Jhaveri; Cynthia Ménard; Padraig Warde; John Trachtenberg; Gina Lockwood; Michael Milosevic Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2007-09-19 Impact factor: 7.038