Apparent diffusion coefficient value and ratio as noninvasive potential biomarkers to predict prostate cancer grading: Comparison with prostate biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimen

American Journal of Roentgenology

Volumn 204, Issue 3, 2015, Pages 550-557

  De Cobelli, Francesco ^a   Ravelli, Silvia ^a   Esposito, Antonio ^a   Giganti, Francesco ^a   Gallina, Andrea ^a   Montorsi, Francesco ^a   Del Maschio, Alessandro ^a  

^a SAN RAFFAELE HOSPITAL   (Italy)

Author keywords

Apparent diffusion coefficient; Apparent diffusion coefficient ratio; Diffusion weighted imaging; Gleason score; Prostate cancer

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; APPARENT DIFFUSION COEFFICIENT RATIO; APPARENT DIFFUSION COEFFICIENT VALUE; ARTICLE; CANCER GRADING; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; DIFFUSION COEFFICIENT; DIFFUSION WEIGHTED IMAGING; GLEASON SCORE; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; IMAGE GUIDED BIOPSY; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MULTIPARAMETRIC MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE BIOPSY; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATECTOMY; RISK FACTOR; BIOPSY; COMPARATIVE STUDY; EVALUATION STUDY; MIDDLE AGED; PATHOLOGY; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PROCEDURES; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; PROSTATE; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; VERY ELDERLY;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BIOPSY; DIFFUSION MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM GRADING; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; PROSTATE; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS;

EID: 84928424563     PISSN: 0361803X     EISSN: 15463141     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2214/AJR.14.13146     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Jemal A, Siegel R, Xu J, Ward E. Cancer statistics, 2010. CA Cancer J Clin 2010; 60:277-300
2. Lilja H, Ulmert D, Vickers AJ. Prostate-specifc antigen and prostate cancer: prediction, detection and monitoring. Nat Rev Cancer 2008; 8:268-278
3. Etzioni R, Penson DF, Legler JM, et al. Overdiagnosis due to prostate-specifc antigen screening: lessons from U.S. prostate cancer incidence trends. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002; 94:981-990
4. Schröder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, et al.; ER-SPC Investigators. Screening and prostate-cancer mortality in a randomized European study. N Engl J Med 2009; 360:1320-1328
5. Bill-Axelson A, Holmberg L, Ruutu M, et al.; Scandinavian Prostate Cancer Group Study No. 4. Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2005; 352:1977-1984
6. Cooperberg MR, Lubeck DP, Meng MV, Mehta SS, Carroll PR. The changing face of low-risk prostate cancer: trends in clinical presentation and primary management. J Clin Oncol 2004; 22:2141-2149
7. van den Bergh RC, Roemeling S, Roobol MJ, et al. Outcomes of men with screen-detected prostate cancer eligible for active surveillance who were managed expectantly. Eur Urol 2009; 55:1-8
8. Gleason DF, Mellinger GT; Veterans Administration Cooperative Urological Research Group. Prediction of prognosis for prostatic adenocarcinoma by combined histological grading and clinical staging, 1974. J Urol 2002; 167(2 pt 2):953-958; discussion, 959
9. Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC Jr, Amin MB, Egevad LL; ISUP Grading Committee. The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 2005; 29:1228-1242
10. Kvåle R, Møller B, Wahlqvist R, et al. Concordance between Gleason scores of needle biopsies and radical prostatectomy specimens: a population-based study. BJU Int 2009; 103:1647-1654
11. Rajinikanth A, Manoharan M, Soloway CT, Ci-vantos FJ, Soloway MS. Trends in Gleason score: concordance between biopsy and prostatectomy over 15 years. Urology 2008; 72:177-182
12. Stav K, Merald H, Leibovici D, Lindner A, Zis-man A. Does prostate biopsy Gleason score accurately express the biologic features of prostate cancer? Urol Oncol 2007; 25:383-386
13. Bastian PJ, Carter BH, Bjartell A, et al. Insignif-cant prostate cancer and active surveillance: from defnition to clinical implications. Eur Urol 2009; 55:1321-1330
14. Suardi N, Capitanio U, Chun FK, et al. Currently used criteria for active surveillance in men with low-risk prostate cancer: an analysis of pathologic features. Cancer 2008; 113:2068-2072
15. Lee MC, Dong F, Stephenson AJ, Jones JS, Magi-Galluzzi C, Klein EA. The Epstein criteria predict for organ-confned but not insignifcant disease and a high likelihood of cure at radical prostatec-t o m y. Eur Urol 2010; 58:90-95
16. Epstein JI, Walsh PC, Carmichael M, Brendler CB. Pathologic and clinical findings to predict tumor extent of nonpalpable (stage T1c) prostate cancer. JAMA 1994; 271:368-374
17. Gallina A, Suardi N, Montorsi F, et al. Mortality at 120 days after prostatic biopsy: a population-based study of 22, 175 men. Int J Cancer 2008; 123:647-652
18. Akin O, Hricak H. Imaging of prostate cancer. Radiol Clin North Am 2007; 45:207-222
19. Kirkham AP, Emberton M, Allen C. How good is MRI at detecting and characterising cancer within the prostate? Eur Urol 2006; 50:1163-1174; discussion, 1175
20. 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
21. Wang L, Mullerad M, Chen HN, et al. Prostate cancer: incremental value of endorectal MR imaging findings for prediction of extracapsular extension. Radiology 2004; 232:133-139
22. Kim CK, Park BK, Lee HM, Kwon GY. Value of diffusion-weighted imaging for the prediction of prostate cancer location at 3T using a phased-ar-ray coil: preliminary results. Invest Radiol 2007; 42:842-847
23. Miao H, Fukatsu H, Ishigaki T. Prostate cancer detection with 3-T MRI: comparison of diffusion-weighted and T2-weighted imaging. Eur J Radiol 2007; 61:297-302
24. Itou Y, Nakanishi K, Narumi Y, Nishizawa Y, Tsukuma H. Clinical utility of apparent diffusion coeffcient (ADC) values in patients with prostate cancer: can ADC values contribute to assess the aggressiveness of prostate cancer? J Magn Reson Imaging 2011; 33:167-172
25. Tamada T, Sone T, Jo Y, et al. Apparent diffusion coeffcient 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
26. Turkbey B, Shah VP, Pang Y, et al. Is apparent diffusion coeffcient associated with clinical risk scores for prostate cancers that are visible on 3-T MR images? Radiology 2011; 258:488-495
27. Hambrock T, Somford DM, Huisman HJ, et al. Relationship between apparent diffusion coeff-cients at 3.0-T MR imaging and Gleason grade in peripheral zone prostate cancer. Radiology 2011; 259:453-461
28. Yoshimitsu K, Kiyoshima K, Irie H, et al. Usefulness of apparent diffusion coeffcient map in diagnosing prostate carcinoma: correlation with step-wise histopathology. J Magn Reson Imaging 2008; 27:132-139
29. e, and corresponding histologic features. Radiology 2010; 255:485-494
30. Scattoni V, Raber M, Abdollah F, et al. Biopsy schemes with the fewest cores for detecting 95% of the prostate cancers detected by a 24-core bio p s y. Eur Urol 2010; 57:1-8
31. Scattoni V, Zlotta AR, Nava L, Roscigno M, Mon-torsi F, Rigatti P. Prostatic transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) guided biopsy schemes and TRUS prostatic lesion-guided biopsies. Eur Urol Suppl 2002; 1:28-34
32. Srigley JR, Humphrey PA, Amin MB, et al.; Members of the Cancer Committee, College of American Pathologists. Protocol for the examination of specimens from patients with carcinoma of the prostate gland. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2009; 133:1568-1576
33. Edge SB, Byrd DR, Compton CC, et al. American Joint Committee on Cancer Staging Manual, 7th ed. New York, NY: Springer, 2010
34. Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, et al.; European Society of Urogenital Radiology. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 2012; 22:746-757
35. Lim HK, Kim JK, Kim KA, Cho KS. Prostate cancer: apparent diffusion coeffcient map with T2-weighted images for detection-a multireader study. Radiology 2009; 250:145-151
36. Katahira K, Takahara T, Kwee TC, et al. Ultra-high-b-value diffusion-weighted MR imaging for the detection of prostate cancer: evaluation in 201 cases with histopathological correlation. Eur Ra-diol 2011; 21:188-196
37. Haider MA, van der Kwast TH, Tanguay J, et al. Combined T2-weighted and diffusion-weighted MRI for localization of prostate cancer. AJR 2007; 189:323-328
38. Kitajima K, Takahashi S, Ueno Y, et al. Do apparent diffusion coeffcient (ADC) values obtained using high b-values with a 3-T MRI correlate better than a transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided biopsy with true Gleason scores obtained from radical prostatectomy specimens for patients with prostate cancer? Eur J Radiol 2013; 82:1219-1226
39. van As NJ, de Souza NM, Riches SF, et al. A study of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in men with untreated localised prostate cancer on active surveillance. Eur Urol 2009; 56:981-987
40. Morgan VA, Riches SF, Thomas K, et al. Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging for monitoring prostate cancer progression in patients managed by active surveillance. Br J Radiol 2011; 84:31-37