Clinical utility of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values in patients with prostate cancer: Can ADC values contribute to assess the aggressiveness of prostate cancer?

Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Volumn 33, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 167-172

  Itou, Yasushi ^a   Nakanishi, Katsuyuki ^a   Narumi, Yoshifumi ^b   Nishizawa, Yasuko ^a   Tsukuma, Hideaki ^a  

^a OSAKA MEDICAL CENTER FOR CANCER AND CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASES   (Japan)

^b OSAKA MEDICAL COLLEGE   (Japan)

Author keywords

apparent diffusion coefficient; diffusion weighted MR images; Gleason score; prostate cancer

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; APPARENT DIFFUSION COEFFICIENT; ARTICLE; CANCER HORMONE THERAPY; CANCER RADIOTHERAPY; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; DIFFUSION WEIGHTED IMAGING; GLEASON SCORE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; ONCOLOGICAL PROCEDURES; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATECTOMY; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY;

AGED; ALGORITHMS; DIFFUSION MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 78650645431     PISSN: 10531807     EISSN: 15222586     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/jmri.22317     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Jemal A, Tiwari RC, Murray T, et al. Cancer statistics, 2004. CA Cancer J Clin 2004; 54: 8-29.
2. Hricak H,. MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging in the pre-treatment evaluation of prostate cancer. Br J Radiol 2005; 78:(Spec no. 2): S103-S111. (Pubitemid 43019918)
3. Pan CC, Potter SR, Partin AW, et al. The prognosis significance of tertiary gleason patterns of higher grade in radical prostatectomy specimens. Am J Surg Pathol 2000; 24: 563-569.
4. Herman CM, Kattan MW, Ohori M, et al. Primary Gleason pattern as a predictor of disease progression in Gleason score 7 prostate cancer. Am J Surg Pathol 2001; 25; 657-660.
5. King CR,. Patterns of prostate cancer biopsy grading: trends and clinical implications. Int J Cancer 2000; 90: 305-311.
6. Cookson MS, Fleshiner NE, Soloway SM, et al. Correlation between gleason socre of needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimen: accuracy and clinical implications. J Urol 1997; 157: 559-562.
7. Sugahara T, Korogi Y, Kochi M, et al. Usefulness of diffusion-weighted MRI with echo-planar technique in the evaluation of cellularity in glioma. J Magn Reson Imaging 1999; 9: 53-60.
8. Yabuuchi H, Soeda H, Matsuo Y, et al. Phyllodes tumor of the breast: correlation between MR findings and histological grade. Radiology 2006; 241: 702-709.
9. Higano S, Yun X, Kumabe T, et al. Malignant astrocytic tumors: clinical importance of apparent diffusion coefficient in prediction of grade and prognosis. Radiology 2006; 241: 839-846.
10. Zakian K, Sircar K, Hrick H, et al. Correlation of proton MR spectroscopic imaging with Gleason score based on step-section pathologic analysis after radical prostatectomy. Radiology 2005; 234: 804-814.
11. Wang L, Mazaheri Y, Zhang J, et al. Assessment of biological aggressiveness of prostate cancer: correlation of MR signal intensity with Gleason grade after radical prostatectomy. Radiology 2008; 246: 168-176.
12. Yoshimitsu, K, Kiyoshima K, Irie H, et al. Usefulness of apparent diffusion coefficient map in diagnosing prostate carcinoma: correlation with stepwise histopathology. J Magn Reson Imaging 2008; 27: 132-139.
13. Desouza NM, Riches SF, Vanas NJ, et al. Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging: a potential non-invasive marker of tumour aggressiveness in localized prostate cancer. Clin Radiol 2008; 63: 774-782.
14. Cuzick J,. A Wilcoxon-type test for trend. Stat Med 1985; 4: 87-90.
15. Gleason DF, Mellinger GT, The Veterans Administration Cooperative Urological Research Group,. Prediction of prognosis for prostatic adenocarcinoma by combined histological grading and clinical staging. J Urol 1974; 111: 58-64.
16. McNeal JE, Villers AA, Redwine EA, et al. Histologic differentiation, cancer volume, and pelvic lymph node metastasis in adenocarcinoma of the prostate. Cancer 1990; 66: 1225-1233.
17. Aihara M, Wheeler TM, Ohori M, et al. Heterogeneity of prostate cancer in radical prostatectomy specimens. Urology 1994; 43: 60-67. (Pubitemid 24044315)
18. Sakr WA, Tefilli MV, Grignon DJ, et al. Gleason score 7 prostate cancer: a heterogeneous entity? Correlation with pathologic parameters and disease-free survival. Urology 2000; 56: 730-734.
19. King CR,. Patterns of prostate cancer biopsy grading: trends and clinical implications. Int J Cancer 2000; 90: 305-311.
20. Cookson MS, Fleshiner NE, Soloway SM, et al. Correlation between Gleason score of needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimen: accuracy and clinical implications. J Urol 1997; 157: 559-562.
21. Steinberg DM, Sauvageot J, Piantadosi S, et al. Correlation of prostate needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy Gleason grade in academic and community settings. Am J Surg Pathol 1997; 21: 566-576.
22. Paulson DF,. Impact of radical prostatectomy in the management of clinically localized disease. J Urol 1994; 152: 1826-1830.
23. Leite KRM, Camara-Lopes LHA, Dall'Oglio MF, et al. Upgrading the Gleason score in extended prostate biopsy: implication for treatment choice. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010 (in press).
24. Wang L, Mazaheri Y, Zhang J, et al. Assessment of biological aggressiveness of prostate cancer: correlation of MR signal intensity with Gleason grade after radical prostatectomy. Radiology 2008; 246: 168-176.