Prostate MRI: Evaluating tumor volume and apparent diffusion coefficient as surrogate biomarkers for predicting tumor Gleason score

Clinical Cancer Research

Volumn 20, Issue 14, 2014, Pages 3705-3711

  Donati, Olivio F ^a,b   Afaq, Asim ^a,c   Vargas, Hebert Alberto ^a   Mazaheri, Yousef ^a   Zheng, Junting ^a   Moskowitz, Chaya S ^a   Hricak, Hedvig ^a   Akin, Oguz ^a  

^a MEMORIAL SLOAN KETTERING CANCER CENTER   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL ZURICH   (Switzerland)

^c Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center ^*  (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY; CANCER GROWTH; CANCER STAGING; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; DIFFUSION COEFFICIENT; DIFFUSION WEIGHTED IMAGING; DISEASE MARKER; GLEASON SCORE; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PREDICTOR VARIABLE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATECTOMY; TUMOR DIFFERENTIATION; TUMOR VOLUME; AREA UNDER THE CURVE; CANCER GRADING; METABOLISM; MIDDLE AGED; PATHOLOGY; PROSTATE; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC;

TUMOR MARKER;

AREA UNDER CURVE; BIOMARKERS, TUMOR; DIFFUSION MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM GRADING; PROSTATE; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; ROC CURVE; TUMOR BURDEN;

EID: 84904399374     PISSN: 10780432     EISSN: 15573265     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-14-0044     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Ahmed HU, Akin O, Coleman JA, Crane S, Emberton M, Goldenberg L, et al. Transatlantic Consensus Group on active surveillance and focal therapy for prostate cancer. BJU Int 2012;109:1636-47.
2. Walsh PC, DeWeese TL, Eisenberger MA. Clinical practice. Localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2007;357:2696-705.
3. Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2013. CA Cancer J Clin 2013;63:11-30.
4. Wolters T, Roobol MJ, van Leeuwen PJ, van den Bergh RC, Hoedemaeker RF, van Leenders GJ, et al. A critical analysis of the tumor volume threshold for clinically insignificant prostate cancer using a data set of a randomized screening trial. J Urol 2011;185:121-5.
5. Lawrentschuk N, Klotz L. Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer: an update. Nat Rev Urol 2011;8:312-20.
6. Klotz L, Zhang L, Lam A, Nam R, Mamedov A, Loblaw A. Clinical results of long-term follow-up of a large, active surveillance cohort with localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2010;28:126-31.
7. Ahmed HU, Arya M, Freeman A, Emberton M. Do low-grade and low-volume prostate cancers bear the hallmarks of malignancy? Lancet Oncol 2012;13:e509-17.
8. Ahmed HU, Hindley RG, Dickinson L, Freeman A, Kirkham AP, Sahu M, et al. Focal therapy for localised unifocal and multifocal prostate cancer: a prospective development study. Lancet Oncol 2012;13: 622-32.
9. Kobus T, Vos PC, Hambrock T, De Rooij M, Hulsbergen-Van de Kaa CA, Barentsz JO, et al. Prostate cancer aggressiveness: in vivo assessment of MR spectroscopy and diffusion-weighted imaging at 3 T. Radiology 2012;265:457-67.
10. Vargas HA, Akin O, Franiel T, Mazaheri Y, Zheng J, Moskowitz C, et al. Diffusion-weighted endorectal MR imaging at 3 T for prostate cancer: tumor detection and assessment of aggressiveness. Radiology 2011;259:775-84.
11. Turkbey B, Shah VP, Pang Y, Bernardo M, Xu S, Kruecker J, et al. Is apparent diffusion coefficient associated with clinical risk scores for prostate cancers that are visible on 3-T MR images? Radiology 2011;258:488-95.
12. Oto A, Yang C, Kayhan A, Tretiakova M, Antic T, Schmid-Tannwald C, et al. Diffusion-weighted and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI of prostate cancer: correlation of quantitative MR parameters with Gleason score and tumor angiogenesis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2011;197:1382-90.
13. Hambrock T, Somford DM, Huisman HJ, van Oort IM, Witjes JA, Hulsbergen-van de Kaa CA, et al. Relationship between apparent diffusion coef ficients at 3.0-T MR imaging and Gleason grade in peripheral zone prostate cancer. Radiology 2011;259:453-61.
14. Peng Y, Jiang Y, Yang C, Brown JB, Antic T, Sethi I, et al. Quantitative analysis of multiparametric prostate MR images: differentiation between prostate cancer and normal tissue and correlation with Gleason score - a computer-aided diagnosis development study. Radiology 2013;267:787-96.
15. McNeal JE. Cancer volume and site of origin of adenocarcinoma in the prostate: relationship to local and distant spread. Hum Pathol 1992;23:258-66.
16. Stamey TA, McNeal JE, Freiha FS, Redwine E. Morphometric and clinical studies on 68 consecutive radical prostatectomies. J Urol 1988;139:1235-41.
17. Isebaert S, Van den Bergh L, Haustermans K, Joniau S, Lerut E, De Wever L, et al. Multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer localization in correlation to whole-mount histopathology. J Magn Reson Imaging 201;37:1392-401.
18. Mazaheri Y, Hricak H, Fine SW, Akin O, Shukla-Dave A, Ishill NM, et al. Prostate tumor volume measurement with combined T2-weighted imaging and diffusion-weighted MR: correlation with pathologic tumor volume. Radiology 2009;252:449-57.
19. Donati OF, Mazaheri Y, Afaq A, Vargas HA, Zheng J, Moskowitz CS, et al. Prostate cancer aggressiveness: assessment with whole-lesion histogram analysis of the apparent diffusion coef ficient. Radiology 2014;271:143-52.
20. McNeal JE, Redwine EA, Freiha FS, Stamey TA. Zonal distribution of prostatic adenocarcinoma. Correlation with histologic pattern and direction of spread. Am J Surg Pathol 1988;12:897-906. (Pubitemid 19011040)
21. Bland JM, Altman DG. Calculating correlation coefficients with repeated observations: Part 2-Correlation between subjects. BMJ 1995;310:633.
22. Stamey TA, Freiha FS, McNeal JE, Redwine EA, Whittemore AS, Schmid HP. Localized prostate cancer. Relationship of tumor volume to clinical significance for treatment of prostate cancer. Cancer 1993;71:933-8. (Pubitemid 23049614)
23. Turkbey B, Mani H, Aras O, Rastinehad AR, Shah V, Bernardo M, et al. Correlation of magnetic resonance imaging tumor volume with histopathology. J Urol 2012;188:1157-63.
24. Verma S, Rajesh A, Morales H, Lemen L, Bills G, Delworth M, et al. Assessment of aggressiveness of prostate cancer: correlation of apparent diffusion coefficient with histologic grade after radical prostatectomy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2011;196:374-81.
25. Dale BM, Braithwaite AC, Boll DT, Merkle EM. Field strength and diffusion encoding technique affect the apparent diffusion coefficient measurements in diffusion-weighted imaging of the abdomen. Invest Radiol 2010;45:104-8.
26. Donati OF, Chong D, Nanz D, Boss A, Froehlich JM, Andres E, et al. Diffusion-weighted MR Imaging of Upper Abdominal Organs: Field Strength and Intervendor Variability of Apparent Diffusion Coefficients. Radiology 2014;270:454-63.
27. Cooperberg MR, Broering JM, Kantoff PW, Carroll PR. Contemporary trends in low risk prostate cancer: risk assessment and treatment. J Urol 2007;178:S14-9. (Pubitemid 47224952)
28. Bonekamp D, Jacobs MA, El-Khouli R, Stoianovici D, Macura KJ. Advancements in MR imaging of the prostate: from diagnosis to interventions. Radiographics 2011;31:677-703.
29. Fleming ID, Cooper JS, Henson DE, Hutter RV, Kennedy BJ, Murphy GP, et al. AJCC Cancer Staging Manual. 5th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott-Raven; 1997.