Changes in epithelium, stroma, and lumen space correlate more strongly with gleason pattern and are stronger predictors of prostate ADC changes than cellularity metrics1

Radiology

Volumn 277, Issue 3, 2015, Pages 751-762

  Chatterjee, Aritrick ^a   Watson, Geoffrey ^b   Myint, Esther ^c,d   Sved, Paul ^b   McEntee, Mark ^a   Bourne, Roger ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

^b Department of Clinical Pathology and Diagnostic Oncology ^*  (Australia)

^c ROYAL PRINCE ALFRED HOSPITAL   (Australia)

^d DOUGLASS HANLY MOIR PATHOLOGY   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; APPARENT DIFFUSION COEFFICIENT; ARTICLE; CELL COUNT; CELL DENSITY; CELL VOLUME; CLINICAL ARTICLE; DIFFUSION COEFFICIENT; DIFFUSION WEIGHTED IMAGING; EX VIVO STUDY; GLEASON SCORE; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; IMAGE ANALYSIS; MALE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE ADENOCARCINOMA; RADIOLOGICAL PARAMETERS; STROMA CELL; CANCER GRADING; EPITHELIUM; MIDDLE AGED; PATHOLOGY; PROSTATE; PROSTATE TUMOR;

DIFFUSION MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; EPITHELIUM; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM GRADING; PROSTATE; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS;

EID: 84948733585     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: 15271315     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2015142414     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. 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(9):572-576.
2. Langer DL, van der Kwast TH, Evans AJ, et al. Prostate tissue composition and MR measurements: investigating the relationships between ADC, T2, K(trans), v(e), and corresponding histologic features. Radiology 2010; 255(2):485-494.
3. Pickles MD, Gibbs P, Sreenivas M, Turnbull LW. Diffusion-weighted imaging of normal and malignant prostate tissue at 3. 0T. J Magn Reson Imaging 2006;23(2):130-134.
4. 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(3):720-726.
5. Zelhof B, Pickles M, Liney G, et al. Correlation of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance data with cellularity in prostate cancer. BJU Int 2009;103(7):883-888.
6. Wang XZ, Wang B, Gao ZQ, et al. Diffusionweighted imaging of prostate cancer: correlation between apparent diffusion coefficient values and tumor proliferation. J Magn Reson Imaging 2009;29(6):1360-1366.
7. Suo S, Chen X, Wu L, et al. Non-Gaussian water diffusion kurtosis imaging of prostate cancer. Magn Reson Imaging 2014;32(5): 421-427.
8. Woodfield CA, Tung GA, Grand DJ, Pezzullo JA, Machan JT, Renzulli JF 2nd. Diffusionweighted MRI of peripheral zone prostate cancer: comparison of tumor apparent diffusion coefficient with Gleason score and percentage of tumor on core biopsy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010;194(4):W316-W322.
9. 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(2):488-495.
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(2):453-461.
11. Venkataraman G, Rycyna K, Rabanser A, et al. Morphometric signature differences in nuclei of Gleason pattern 4 areas in Gleason 7 prostate cancer with differing primary grades on needle biopsy. J Urol 2009;181(1):88-93; discussion 93-94.
12. Bekta? S, Bahadir B, Do?an Gün B, Kerti? G, Özdamar SO. The relation between Gleason score, and nuclear size and shape factors in prostatic adenocarcinoma. Turk J Med Sci 2009;39(3):381-387.
13. Jung DC, Lee HJ, Seo JW, et al. Diffusionweighted imaging of a prostate cancer xenograft model seen on a 7 Tesla animal MR scanner: comparison of ADC values and pathologic findings. Korean J Radiol 2012;13(1):82-89.
14. Lyng H, Haraldseth O, Rofstad EK. Measurement of cell density and necrotic fraction in human melanoma xenografts by diffusion weighted magnetic resonance imaging. Magn Reson Med 2000;43(6):828-836.
15. Gupta RK, Cloughesy TF, Sinha U, et al. Relationships between choline magnetic resonance spectroscopy, apparent diffusion coefficient and quantitative histopathology in human glioma. J Neurooncol 2000;50(3):215-226.
16. Gauvain KM, McKinstry RC, Mukherjee P, et al. Evaluating pediatric brain tumor cellularity with diffusion-tensor imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001;177(2):449-454.
17. Humphries PD, Sebire NJ, Siegel MJ, Olsen ØE. Tumors in pediatric patients at diffusion-weighted MR imaging: apparent diffusion coefficient and tumor cellularity. Radiology 2007;245(3):848-854.
18. Ginat DT, Mangla R, Yeaney G, Johnson M, Ekholm S. Diffusion-weighted imaging for differentiating benign from malignant skull lesions and correlation with cell density. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2012;198(6):W597-W601.
19. Yoshikawa MI, Ohsumi S, Sugata S, et al. Relation between cancer cellularity and apparent diffusion coefficient values using diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer. Radiat Med 2008;26(4):222-226.
20. Manenti G, Di Roma M, Mancino S, et al. Malignant renal neoplasms: correlation between ADC values and cellularity in diffusion weighted magnetic resonance imaging at 3 T. Radiol Med (Torino) 2008;113(2):199-213.
21. Sugahara T, Korogi Y, Kochi M, et al. Usefulness of diffusion-weighted MRI with echo-planar technique in the evaluation of cellularity in gliomas. J Magn Reson Imaging 1999;9(1): 53-60.
22. Guo Y, Cai YQ, Cai ZL, et al. Differentiation of clinically benign and malignant breast lesions using diffusion-weighted imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 2002;16(2):172-178.
23. Hatakenaka M, Soeda H, Yabuuchi H, et al. Apparent diffusion coefficients of breast tumors: clinical application. Magn Reson Med Sci 2008;7(1):23-29.
24. Woodhams R, Kakita S, Hata H, et al. Diffusion-weighted imaging of mucinous carcinoma of the breast: evaluation of apparent diffusion coefficient and signal intensity in correlation with histologic findings. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009;193(1):260-266.
25. Xu J, Does MD, Gore JC. Sensitivity of MR diffusion measurements to variations in intracellular structure: effects of nuclear size. Magn Reson Med 2009;61(4):828-833.
26. Thelwall PE, Grant SC, Stanisz GJ, Blackband SJ. Human erythrocyte ghosts: exploring the origins of multiexponential water diffusion in a model biological tissue with magnetic resonance. Magn Reson Med 2002;48(4): 649-657.
27. Thelwall PE, Shepherd TM, Stanisz GJ, Blackband SJ. Effects of temperature and aldehyde fixation on tissue water diffusion properties, studied in an erythrocyte ghost tissue model. Magn Reson Med 2006;56(2):282-289.
28. Jelescu IO, Ciobanu L, Geffroy F, Marquet P, Le Bihan D. Effects of hypotonic stress and ouabain on the apparent diffusion coefficient of water at cellular and tissue levels in Aplysia. NMR Biomed 2014;27(3):280-290.
29. Bourne R, Kurniawan N, Cowin G, Sved P, Watson G. 16 T diffusion microimaging of fixed prostate tissue: preliminary findings. Magn Reson Med 2011;66(1):244-247.
30. Bourne RM, Kurniawan N, Cowin G, et al. Microscopic diffusivity compartmentation in formalin-fixed prostate tissue. Magn Reson Med 2012;68(2):614-620.
31. Bourne RM, Kurniawan N, Cowin G, et al. Biexponential diffusion decay in formalinfixed prostate tissue: preliminary findings. Magn Reson Med 2012;68(3):954-959.
32. Zhao M, Myint E, Watson G, Bourne R. Comparison of conventional histology and diffusion weighted microimaging for estimation of epithelial, stromal, and acinar volumes in prostate tissue [abstr]. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-First Meeting of the International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine. Berkeley, Calif: International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, 2013; 3090.
33. Mukherjee S, Richardson AM, Rodriguez-Canales J, et al. Identification of EpCAM as a molecular target of prostate cancer stroma. Am J Pathol 2009;175(6):2277-2287.
34. Bourne R, Bongers A, Charles N, Power C, Sved P, Watson G. Effect of formalin fixation on biexponential modeling of diffusion decay in prostate tissue. Magn Reson Med 2013;70(4):1160-1166.
35. Dunn OJ, Clark V. Comparison of tests of the equality of dependent correlation coefficients. J Am Stat Assoc 1971;66(336):904-908.
36. Borren A, Groenendaal G, Moman MR, et al. Accurate prostate tumour detection with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: dependence on histological properties. Acta Oncol 2014;53(1):88-95.
37. Grant SC, Buckley DL, Gibbs S, Webb AG, Blackband SJ. MR microscopy of multicomponent diffusion in single neurons. Magn Reson Med 2001;46(6):1107-1112.
38. Nagel KN, Schouten MG, Hambrock T, et al. Differentiation of prostatitis and prostate cancer by using diffusion-weighted MR imaging and MR-guided biopsy at 3 T. Radiology 2013;267(1):164-172.
39. Le Bihan D. The 'wet mind': water and functional neuroimaging. Phys Med Biol 2007; 52(7):R57-R90.
40. Le Bihan D. Apparent diffusion coefficient and beyond: what diffusion MR imaging can tell us about tissue structure. Radiology 2013;268(2):318-322.
41. Hall MG, Bongers A, Sved P, Watson G, Bourne RM. Assessment of non-Gaussian diffusion with singly and doubly stretched biexponential models of diffusion-weighted MRI (DWI) signal attenuation in prostate tissue. NMR Biomed 2015;28(4):486-495.
42. Pyatigorskaya N, Le Bihan D, Reynaud O, Ciobanu L. Relationship between the diffusion time and the diffusion MRI signal observed at 17. 2 Tesla in the healthy rat brain cortex. Magn Reson Med 2014;72(2):492-500.
43. Panagiotaki E, Chan RW, Dikaios N, et al. Microstructural characterization of normal and malignant human prostate tissue with vascular, extracellular, and restricted diffusion for cytometry in tumours magnetic resonance imaging. Invest Radiol 2015;50(4):218-227.