Apparent diffusion coefficient for prostate cancer imaging: Impact of b values

American Journal of Roentgenology

Volumn 202, Issue 3, 2014, Pages

  Peng, Yahui ^a   Jiang, Yulei ^b   Antic, Tatjana ^b   Sethi, Ila ^b   Schmid Tannwald, Christine ^b   Eggener, Scott ^b   Oto, Aytekin ^b  

^a BEIJING JIAOTONG UNIVERSITY   (China)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO   (United States)

Author keywords

Apparent diffusion coefficient; b value; Gleason score; Monoexponential decay; Prostate cancer

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AREA UNDER THE CURVE; ARTICLE; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORRELATION COEFFICIENT; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; DIFFUSION COEFFICIENT; DIFFUSION WEIGHTED IMAGING; GLEASON SCORE; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATECTOMY; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

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

EID: 84896718168     PISSN: 0361803X     EISSN: 15463141     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2214/AJR.13.10917     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Hoeks CM, Barentsz JO, Hambrock T, et al. Prostate cancer: multiparametric MR imaging for detection, localization, and staging. Radiology 2011; 261:46-66
2. Qayyum A. Diffusion-weighted imaging in the abdomen and pelvis: concepts and applications. RadioGraphics 2009; 29:1797-1810
3. Issa B. In vivo measurement of the apparent diffusion coefficient in normal and malignant prostatic tissues using echo-planar imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 2002; 16:196-200 (Pubitemid 34810058)
4. Gibbs P, Pickles MD, Turnbull LW. Diffusion imaging of the prostate at 3.0 tesla. Invest Radiol 2006; 41:185-188 (Pubitemid 44406217)
5. Kim JH, Kim JK, Park BW, Kim N, Cho KS. Apparent diffusion coefficient: prostate cancer versus noncancerous tissue according to anatomical region. J Magn Reson Imaging 2008; 28:1173-1179
6. 2. AJR 2010; 194:[web]W33-W37
7. Vargas HA, Akin O, Franiel T, et al. Diffusion-weighted endorectal MR imaging at 3 T for prostate cancer: tumor detection and assessment of aggressiveness. Radiology 2011; 259:775-784
8. Thörmer G, Otto J, Reiss-Zimmermann M, et al. Diagnostic value of ADC in patients with prostate cancer: influence of the choice of b values. Eur Radiol 2012; 22:1820-1828
9. Peng Y, Jiang Y, Yang C, et al. Quantitative analysis of multi-parametric prostate MR images: differentiation between prostate cancer and normal tissue and correlation with Gleason score - a computeraided diagnosis development study. Radiology 2013; 267:787-796
10. Hambrock T, Somford DM, Huisman HJ, et al. Relationship between apparent diffusion coefficients at 3.0-T MR imaging and Gleason grade in peripheral zone prostate cancer. Radiology 2011; 259:453-461
11. Hagmann P, Jonasson L, Maeder P, Thiran JP, Wedeen VJ, Meuli R. Understanding diffusion MR imaging techniques: from scalar diffusion-weighted imaging to diffusion tensor imaging and beyond. RadioGraphics 2006; 26:S205-S223
12. Dickinson L, Ahmed HU, Allen C, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging for the detection, localisation, and characterisation of prostate cancer: recommendations from a European consensus meeting. Eur Urol 2011; 59:477-494
13. Metz CE. ROC methodology in radiologic imaging. Invest Radiol 1986; 21:720-733 (Pubitemid 16015664)
14. Metz CE, Pan X. "Proper" binormal ROC curves: theory and maximum-likelihood estimation. J Math Psychol 1999; 43:1-33
15. Hanley JA, McNeil BJ. The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology 1982; 143:29-36 (Pubitemid 12142173)
16. Metz CE, Wang P-L, Kronman H. A new approach for testing the significance of differences between ROC curves measured from correlated data. In: Deconinck F, ed. Information processing in medical imaging. The Hague, The Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff, 1984:432-445
17. Riffenburgh RH. Statistics in medicine, 2nd ed. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Academic Press, 2006
18. Bonett DG, Wright TA. Sample size requirements for estimating Pearson, Kendall and Spearman correlations. Psychometrika 2000; 65:23-28
19. Metz CE. ROC software. metz-roc.uchicago.edu. Accessed June 25, 2012
20. Turkbey B, Shah VP, Pang Y, et al. Is apparent diffusion coefficient associated with clinical risk scores for prostate cancers that are visible on 3-T MR images? Radiology 2011; 258:488-495
21. Tamada T, Sone T, Jo Y, et al. Apparent diffusion coefficient values in peripheral and transition zones of the prostate: comparison between normal and malignant prostatic tissues and correlation with histologic grade. J Magn Reson Imaging 2008; 28:720-726
22. Le Bihan D, Breton E, Lallemand D, Aubin ML, Vignaud J, Laval-Jeantet M. Separation of diffusion and perfusion in intravoxel incoherent motion MR imaging. Radiology 1988; 168:497-505
23. Döpfert J, Lemke A, Weidner A, Schad LR. Investigation of prostate cancer using diffusion-weighted intravoxel incoherent motion imaging. Magn Reson Imaging 2011; 29:1053-1058
24. Quentin M, Blondin D, Klasen J, et al. Comparison of different mathematical models of diffusion-weighted prostate MR imaging. Magn Reson Imaging 2012; 30:1468-1474
25. Metens T, Miranda D, Absil J, Matos C. What is the optimal b value in diffusion-weighted MR imaging to depict prostate cancer at 3T? Eur Radiol 2012; 22:703-709
26. Koh DM, Collins DJ. Diffusion-weighted MRI in the body: applications and challenges in oncology. AJR 2007; 188:1622-1635 (Pubitemid 46866868)