Apparent diffusion coefficient ratio correlates significantly with prostate cancer gleason score at final pathology

Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Volumn 42, Issue 2, 2015, Pages 446-453

  Boesen, Lars ^a   Chabanova, Elizaveta ^a   Løgager, Vibeke ^a   Balslev, Ingegerd ^a   Thomsen, Henrik S ^a  

^a GENTOFTE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Denmark)

Author keywords

diffusion weighted MRI; Gleason score; prostate cancer; prostatectomy

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; APPARENT DIFFUSION COEFFICIENT; ARTICLE; COHORT ANALYSIS; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; DIFFUSION COEFFICIENT; GLEASON SCORE; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEASUREMENT ACCURACY; MULTIPARAMETRIC MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PREOPERATIVE PERIOD; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATECTOMY; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; ALGORITHM; CANCER GRADING; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; DIFFUSION WEIGHTED IMAGING; EVALUATION STUDY; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; MIDDLE AGED; OBSERVER VARIATION; PATHOLOGY; PROCEDURES; PROSTATE TUMOR; REPRODUCIBILITY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STATISTICS;

AGED; ALGORITHMS; DIFFUSION MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; HUMANS; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM GRADING; OBSERVER VARIATION; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STATISTICS AS TOPIC;

EID: 84937572140     PISSN: 10531807     EISSN: 15222586     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/jmri.24801     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC, Amin MB, Egevad LL,. The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 2005; 29: 1228-1242.
2. Epstein JI, Feng Z, Trock BJ, Pierorazio PM,. Upgrading and downgrading of prostate cancer from biopsy to radical prostatectomy: incidence and predictive factors using the modified Gleason grading system and factoring in tertiary grades. Eur Urol 2012; 61: 1019-1024.
3. Oto A, Kayhan A, Jiang Y, et al., Prostate cancer: differentiation of central gland cancer from benign prostatic hyperplasia by using diffusion-weighted and dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 2010; 257: 715-723.
4. Litjens GJS, Hambrock T, Hulsbergen-van de Kaa C, Barentsz JO, Huisman HJ,. Interpatient variation in normal peripheral zone apparent diffusion coefficient: effect on the prediction of prostate cancer aggressiveness. Radiology 2012; 265: 260-266.
5. Verma S, Rajesh A, Morales H, 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: 374-381.
6. 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.
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. Jung S II, Donati OF, Vargas HA, Goldman D, Hricak H, Akin O,. Transition zone prostate cancer: incremental value of diffusion-weighted endorectal MR imaging in tumor detection and assessment of aggressiveness. Radiology 2013; 269: 493-503.
9. Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, et al., ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 2012; 22: 746-757.
10. Boesen L, Noergaard N, Chabanova E, et al., Early experience with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsies under visual transrectal ultrasound guidance in patients suspicious for prostate cancer undergoing repeated biopsy. Scand J Urol 2014 [Epub ahead of print].
11. Roethke MC, Kuru TH, Schultze S, et al., Evaluation of the ESUR PI-RADS scoring system for multiparametric MRI of the prostate with targeted MR/TRUS fusion-guided biopsy at 3.0 Tesla. Eur Radiol 2014; 24: 344-352.
12. Chan TY, Partin AW, Walsh PC, Epstein JI,. Prognostic significance of Gleason score 3+4 versus Gleason score 4+3 tumor at radical prostatectomy. Urology 2000; 56: 823-827.
13. Rasiah KK, Stricker PD, Haynes A-M, et al., Prognostic significance of Gleason pattern in patients with Gleason score 7 prostate carcinoma. Cancer 2003; 98: 2560-2565.
14. Stark JR, Perner S, Stampfer MJ, et al., Gleason score and lethal prostate cancer: does 3-+-4-=-4-+-3? J Clin Oncol 2009; 27: 3459-3464.
15. Kim CK, Park BK, Kim B,. High-b-value diffusion-weighted imaging at 3 T to detect prostate cancer: comparisons between b values of 1,000 and 2,000 s/mm2. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010; 194: W33-37.
16. Zelhof B, Pickles M, Liney G, et al., Correlation of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance data with cellularity in prostate cancer. BJU Int 2009; 103: 883-888.
17. Gibbs P, Liney GP, Pickles MD, Zelhof B, Rodrigues G, Turnbull LW,. Correlation of ADC and T2 measurements with cell density in prostate cancer at 3.0 Tesla. Invest Radiol 2009; 44: 572-576.
18. Simpkin CJ, Morgan VA, Giles SL, Riches SF, Parker C, deSouza NM,. Relationship between T2 relaxation and apparent diffusion coefficient in malignant and non-malignant prostate regions and the effect of peripheral zone fractional volume. Br J Radiol 2013; 86: 20120469.
19. Kim JH, Kim JK, Park B-W, Kim N, Cho K-S,. Apparent diffusion coefficient: prostate cancer versus noncancerous tissue according to anatomical region. J Magn Reson Imaging 2008; 28: 1173-1179.
20. 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.
21. 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.
22. Thörmer G, Otto J, Horn L-C, et al., Non-invasive estimation of prostate cancer aggressiveness using diffusion-weighted MRI and 3D proton MR spectroscopy at 3.0 T. Acta Radiol 2014 [Epub ahead of print].
23. Lebovici A, Sfrangeu SA, Feier D, et al., Evaluation of the normal-to-diseased apparent diffusion coefficient ratio as an indicator of prostate cancer aggressiveness. BMC Med Imaging 2014; 14: 15.
24. Rosenkrantz AB, Kopec M, Kong X, et al., Prostate cancer vs. post-biopsy hemorrhage: diagnosis with T2- and diffusion-weighted imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 2010; 31: 1387-1394.
25. Donati OF, Mazaheri Y, Afaq A, et al., Prostate cancer aggressiveness: assessment with whole-lesion histogram analysis of the apparent diffusion coefficient. Radiology 2014; 271: 143-152.
26. Langer DL, van der Kwast TH, Evans AJ, et al., Intermixed normal tissue within prostate cancer: effect on MR imaging measurements of apparent diffusion coefficient and T2-sparse versus dense cancers. Radiology 2008; 249: 900-908.
27. Delahunt B, Miller RJ, Srigley JR, Evans AJ, Samaratunga H,. Gleason grading: past, present and future. Histopathology 2012; 60: 75-86.
28. Bangma CH, Bul M, van der Kwast TH, et al., Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2013; 85: 295-302.
29. Park HJ, Ha Y-S, Park SY, et al., Incidence of upgrading and upstaging in patients with low-volume Gleason score 3+4 prostate cancers at biopsy: finding a new group eligible for active surveillance. Urol Int 2013; 90: 301-305.
30. Pierorazio PM, Walsh PC, Partin AW, Epstein JI,. Prognostic Gleason grade grouping: data based on the modified Gleason scoring system. BJU Int 2013; 111: 753-760.
31. Eggener SE, Scardino PT, Walsh PC, et al., Predicting 15-year prostate cancer specific mortality after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2011; 185: 869-875.
32. Stephenson AJ, Scardino PT, Eastham JA, et al., Postoperative nomogram predicting the 10-year probability of prostate cancer recurrence after radical prostatectomy. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23: 7005-7012.
33. Herman CM, Kattan MW, Ohori M, Scardino PT, Wheeler TM,. Primary Gleason pattern as a predictor of disease progression in Gleason score 7 prostate cancer: a multivariate analysis of 823 men treated with radical prostatectomy. Am J Surg Pathol 2001; 25: 657-660.
34. Amin A, Partin A, Epstein JI,. Gleason score 7 prostate cancer on needle biopsy: relation of primary pattern 3 or 4 to pathological stage and progression after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2011; 186: 1286-1290.
35. Huang CC, Kong MX, Zhou M, et al., Gleason score 3-+-4-=-7 prostate cancer with minimal quantity of Gleason pattern 4 on needle biopsy is associated with low-risk tumor in radical prostatectomy specimen. Am J Surg Pathol 2014; 38: 1096-1101.
36. Moore CM, Ridout A, Emberton M,. The role of MRI in active surveillance of prostate cancer. Curr Opin Urol 2013; 23: 261-267.
37. Hu JC, Chang E, Natarajan S, et al., Targeted prostate biopsy in select men for active surveillance-do the Epstein criteria still apply? J Urol 2014; 192: 385-390.
38. 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.
39. Heidenreich A, Bastian PJ, Bellmunt J, et al., EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1. Screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent-update 2013. Eur Urol 2014; 65: 124-137.
40. Rosenkrantz AB, Triolo MJ, Melamed J, Rusinek H, Taneja SS, Deng F-M,. Whole-lesion apparent diffusion coefficient metrics as a marker of percentage Gleason 4 component within Gleason 7 prostate cancer at radical prostatectomy. J Magn Reson Imaging 2014 [Epub ahead of print].