Eri Ota1, Naoko Mori2, Shinichi Yamashita3, Shunji Mugikura1,4, Akihiro Ito3, Kei Takase1. 1. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, 1-1 Seiryo-machi, Aoba-ku, Sendai, 980-8574, Japan. 2. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, 1-1 Seiryo-machi, Aoba-ku, Sendai, 980-8574, Japan. naokomori7127@gmail.com. 3. Department of Urology, Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, 1-1 Seiryo-machi, Aoba-ku, Sendai, 980-8574, Japan. 4. Division of Image Statistics, Tohoku Medical Megabank Organization, Tohoku University, Sendai, Japan.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) parameters in distinguishing between Prostate Cancer Research International Active Surveillance (PRIAS) non-reclassification and reclassification groups during active surveillance (AS) of prostate cancer. METHODS: We included 55 patients who fulfilled the PRIAS criteria and underwent ≥ 2 magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) including diffusion-weighted imaging with an interval of ≤ 3 years between baseline and second MRI. A mono-exponential fitting model was used to automatically create ADC maps with minimum b-values of 0 and maximum of 2000 s/mm2. For detectable lesions on ADC maps, the lesions were manually segmented on each slice of the ADC maps. For undetectable lesions, the corresponding normal-appearing zone of the lobe on each slice of ADC maps was segmented. The ADC data for each slice were summed to obtain the 25th, 50th, and 75th percentile ADC values of the histogram at baseline and second MRI. These ADC parameters at baseline and second MRI, and the changes of ADC parameters from baseline to second MRI were compared between PRIAS non-reclassification and reclassification groups. RESULTS: The PRIAS reclassification group had significantly lower 25th, 50th, and 75th percentile ADC values at second MRI compared to the non-reclassification group. The non-reclassification group had significantly lower changes in ADC values in these percentiles compared to the reclassification group. CONCLUSION: The ADC parameters at second MRI and the changes from baseline to second MRI may be effective distinguishing factors between PRIAS non-reclassification and reclassification groups.
PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) parameters in distinguishing between Prostate Cancer Research International Active Surveillance (PRIAS) non-reclassification and reclassification groups during active surveillance (AS) of prostate cancer. METHODS: We included 55 patients who fulfilled the PRIAS criteria and underwent ≥ 2 magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) including diffusion-weighted imaging with an interval of ≤ 3 years between baseline and second MRI. A mono-exponential fitting model was used to automatically create ADC maps with minimum b-values of 0 and maximum of 2000 s/mm2. For detectable lesions on ADC maps, the lesions were manually segmented on each slice of the ADC maps. For undetectable lesions, the corresponding normal-appearing zone of the lobe on each slice of ADC maps was segmented. The ADC data for each slice were summed to obtain the 25th, 50th, and 75th percentile ADC values of the histogram at baseline and second MRI. These ADC parameters at baseline and second MRI, and the changes of ADC parameters from baseline to second MRI were compared between PRIAS non-reclassification and reclassification groups. RESULTS: The PRIAS reclassification group had significantly lower 25th, 50th, and 75th percentile ADC values at second MRI compared to the non-reclassification group. The non-reclassification group had significantly lower changes in ADC values in these percentiles compared to the reclassification group. CONCLUSION: The ADC parameters at second MRI and the changes from baseline to second MRI may be effective distinguishing factors between PRIAS non-reclassification and reclassification groups.
Authors: Roderick C N van den Bergh; Stijn Roemeling; Monique J Roobol; Wouter Roobol; Fritz H Schröder; Chris H Bangma Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2007-05-25 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Francesco Giganti; Alex Kirkham; Clare Allen; Shonit Punwani; Clément Orczyk; Mark Emberton; Caroline M Moore Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2021-02-03 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Nicholas J van As; Nandita M de Souza; Sophie F Riches; Veronica A Morgan; Sayid A Sohaib; David P Dearnaley; Chris C Parker Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2008-12-06 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Kevin Michael Gallagher; Edward Christopher; Andrew James Cameron; Scott Little; Alasdair Innes; Gill Davis; Julian Keanie; Prasad Bollina; Alan McNeill Journal: BJU Int Date: 2018-10-09 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Belén Pastor-Navarro; José Rubio-Briones; Ángel Borque-Fernando; Luis M Esteban; Jose Luis Dominguez-Escrig; José Antonio López-Guerrero Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2021-06-10 Impact factor: 5.923
Authors: Caroline M Moore; Francesco Giganti; Peter Albertsen; Clare Allen; Chris Bangma; Alberto Briganti; Peter Carroll; Masoom Haider; Veeru Kasivisvanathan; Alex Kirkham; Laurence Klotz; Adil Ouzzane; Anwar R Padhani; Valeria Panebianco; Peter Pinto; Philippe Puech; Antti Rannikko; Raphaele Renard-Penna; Karim Touijer; Baris Turkbey; Heinrik van Poppel; Riccardo Valdagni; Jochen Walz; Ivo Schoots Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2016-06-24 Impact factor: 20.096