Quantitative analysis of prostate multiparametric MR images for detection of aggressive prostate cancer in the peripheral zone: A multiple imager study

Radiology

Volumn 280, Issue 1, 2016, Pages 117-127

  Dinh, Au Hoang ^a   Melodelima, Christelle ^d,e   Souchon, Rémi ^a   Lehaire, Jérôme ^a   Bratan, Flavie ^a,d,e   Florence, Mège Lechevallier ^d   Ruffion, Alain ^f   Crouzet, Sébastien ^a,d,e   Colombel, Marc ^b,c   Rouvière, Olivier ^a,d,e  

^a LABTAU   (France)

^b CNRS   (France)

^c UNIVERSITÉ JOSEPH FOURIER   (France)

^d EDOUARD HERRIOT HOSPITAL   (France)

^e UNIVERSITÉ LYON 1   (France)

^f HOSPICES CIVILS DE LYON   (France)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CANCER LOCALIZATION; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; DIFFUSION COEFFICIENT; DIFFUSION WEIGHTED IMAGING; FALSE POSITIVE RESULT; GLEASON SCORE; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; IMAGING SOFTWARE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MULTIPARAMETRIC MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE SCANNER; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATE TUMOR; PROSTATECTOMY; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; RADIOLOGICAL PARAMETERS; RADIOLOGIST; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; CANCER GRADING; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; EVALUATION STUDY; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; MIDDLE AGED; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PATHOLOGY; PROCEDURES; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; PROSTATE; REPRODUCIBILITY;

CONTRAST MEDIUM;

AGED; CONTRAST MEDIA; EVALUATION STUDIES AS TOPIC; HUMANS; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM GRADING; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; PROSTATE; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 84975303423     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: 15271315     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2016151406     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Eggener SE, Badani K, Barocas DA, et al. Gleason 6 prostate cancer: Translating biology into population health. J Urol 2015;194(3): 626-634.
2. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2015. CA Cancer J Clin 2015;65(1): 5-29.
3. Rubin R. Researchers look to MRI and biomarkers to help improve detection of aggressive prostate cancers. JAMA 2015;313(7): 654-656.
4. Bratan F, Niaf E, Melodelima C, et al. Influence of imaging and histological factors on prostate cancer detection and localisation on multiparametric MRI: A prospective study. Eur Radiol 2013;23(7):2019-2029.
5. Warlick CA. Multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer: seeing is believing. Cancer 2014;120 (18):2806-2809.
6. Puech P, Rouvière O, Renard-Penna R, et al. Prostate cancer diagnosis: multiparametric MR-targeted biopsy with cognitive and transrectal US-MR fusion guidance versus systematic biopsy-prospective multicenter study. Radiology 2013;268(2):461-469.
7. van Hove A, Savoie PH, Maurin C, et al. Comparison of image-guided targeted biopsies versus systematic randomized biopsies in the detection of prostate cancer: A systematic literature review of well-designed studies. World J Urol 2014;32(4):847-858.
8. Fütterer JJ, Briganti A, De Visschere P, et al. Can clinically significant prostate cancer be detected with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging? A systematic review of the literature. Eur Urol 2015;68(6):1045-1053.
9. Schoots IG, Petrides N, Giganti F, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging in active surveillance of prostate cancer: A systematic review. Eur Urol 2015;67(4):627-636.
10. Rosenkrantz AB, Kim S, Lim RP, et al. Prostate cancer localization using multiparametric MR imaging: comparison of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) and Likert scales. Radiology 2013;269(2): 482-492.
11. Vaché T, Bratan F, Mège-Lechevallier F, Roche S, Rabilloud M, Rouvière O. Characterization of prostate lesions as benign or malignant at multiparametric MR imaging: comparison of three scoring systems in patients treated with radical prostatectomy. Radiology 2014;272(2):446-455.
12. Wang L, Mazaheri Y, Zhang J, Ishill NM, Kuroiwa K, Hricak H. Assessment of biologic aggressiveness of prostate cancer: correlation of MR signal intensity with Gleason grade after radical prostatectomy. Radiology 2008;246(1):168-176.
13. Roebuck JR, Haker SJ, Mitsouras D, Rybicki FJ, Tempany CM, Mulkern RV. Carr-Purcell- Meiboom-Gill imaging of prostate cancer: quantitative T2 values for cancer discrimination. Magn Reson Imaging 2009;27(4): 497-502.
14. Liu W, Turkbey B, Sénégas J, et al. Accelerated T2 mapping for characterization of prostate cancer. Magn Reson Med 2011;65(5): 1400-1406.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. 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(2): 374-381.
18. 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.
19. Giles SL, Morgan VA, Riches SF, Thomas K, Parker C, deSouza NM. Apparent diffusion coefficient as a predictive biomarker of prostate cancer progression: value of fast and slow diffusion components. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2011;196(3):586-591.
20. 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.
21. Pang Y, Turkbey B, Bernardo M, et al. Intravoxel incoherent motion MR imaging for prostate cancer: An evaluation of perfusion fraction and diffusion coefficient derived from different b-value combinations. Magn Reson Med 2013;69(2):553-562.
22. Engelbrecht MR, Huisman HJ, Laheij RJ, et al. Discrimination of prostate cancer from normal peripheral zone and central gland tissue by using dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 2003;229(1):248-254.
23. Kim JK, Hong SS, Choi YJ, et al. Wash-in rate on the basis of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI: usefulness for prostate cancer detection and localization. J Magn Reson Imaging 2005;22(5):639-646.
24. Valentini AL, Gui B, Cina A, et al. T2-weighted hypointense lesions within prostate gland: differential diagnosis using wash-in rate parameter on the basis of dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging-hystopatology correlations. Eur J Radiol 2012; 81(11):3090-3095.
25. Vos EK, Litjens GJ, Kobus T, et al. Assessment of prostate cancer aggressiveness using dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging at 3 T. Eur Urol 2013;64(3): 448-455.
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(3):900-908.
27. 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.
28. Oto A, Yang C, Kayhan A, et al. Diffusionweighted 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(6):1382-1390.
29. Chung MP, Margolis D, Mesko S, Wang J, Kupelian P, Kamrava M. Correlation of quantitative diffusion-weighted and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI parameters with prognostic factors in prostate cancer. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 2014;58(5):588-594.
30. Zakian KL, Sircar K, Hricak H, et al. Correlation of proton MR spectroscopic imaging with Gleason score based on step-section pathologic analysis after radical prostatectomy. Radiology 2005;234(3):804-814.
31. Rosenkrantz AB, Sigmund EE, Johnson G, et al. Prostate cancer: feasibility and preliminary experience of a diffusional kurtosis model for detection and assessment of aggressiveness of peripheral zone cancer. Radiology 2012;264(1):126-135.
32. Rosenkrantz AB, Prabhu V, Sigmund EE, Babb JS, Deng FM, Taneja SS. Utility of diffusional kurtosis imaging as a marker of adverse pathologic outcomes among prostate cancer active surveillance candidates undergoing radical prostatectomy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2013;201(4):840-846.
33. Roethke MC, Kuder TA, Kuru TH, et al. Evaluation of diffusion kurtosis imaging versus standard diffusion imaging for detection and grading of peripheral zone prostate cancer. Invest Radiol 2015;50(8):483-489.
34. Ocak I, Bernardo M, Metzger G, et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI of prostate cancer at 3 T: A study of pharmacokinetic parameters. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007;189(4): 849.
35. Langer DL, van der Kwast TH, Evans AJ, Trachtenberg J, Wilson BC, Haider MA. Prostate cancer detection with multi-parametric MRI: logistic regression analysis of quantitative T2, diffusion-weighted imaging, and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 2009;30(2):327-334.
36. Kobus T, Vos PC, Hambrock T, et al. Prostate cancer aggressiveness: In vivo assessment of MR spectroscopy and diffusion-weighted imaging at 3 T. Radiology 2012;265(2): 457-467.
37. Riches SF, Payne GS, Morgan VA, et al. Multivariate modelling of prostate cancer combining magnetic resonance derived T2, diffusion, dynamic contrast-enhanced and spectroscopic parameters. Eur Radiol 2015;25(5): 1247-1256.
38. Vos EK, Kobus T, Litjens GJ, et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for discriminating low-grade from high-grade prostate cancer. Invest Radiol 2015;50(8): 490-497.
39. Nowak J, Malzahn U, Baur AD, et al. The value of ADC, T2 signal intensity, and a combination of both parameters to assess Gleason score and primary Gleason grades in patients with known prostate cancer. Acta Radiol 2016;57(1):107-114.
40. Peng Y, Jiang Y, Antic T, Giger ML, Eggener SE, Oto A. Validation of quantitative analysis of multiparametric prostate MR images for prostate cancer detection and aggressiveness assessment: A cross-imager study. Radiology 2014;271(2):461-471.
41. Hoang Dinh A, Souchon R, Melodelima C, et al. Characterization of prostate cancer using T2 mapping at 3T: A multi-scanner study Diagn Interv Imaging 2015;96(4):365- 372.
42. Bratan F, Melodelima C, Souchon R, et al. How accurate is multiparametric MR imaging in evaluation of prostate cancer volume? Radiology 2015;275(1):144-154.
43. Samaratunga H, Montironi R, True L, et al. International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Handling and Staging of Radical Prostatectomy Specimens. Working group 1: specimen handling. Mod Pathol 2011;24(1): 6-15.
44. Zhang YD, Wang Q, Wu CJ, et al. The histogram analysis of diffusion-weighted intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) imaging for differentiating the Gleason grade of prostate cancer. Eur Radiol 2015;25(4):994-1004.
45. Vignati A, Mazzetti S, Giannini V, et al. Texture features on T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging: new potential biomarkers for prostate cancer aggressiveness. Phys Med Biol 2015;60(7):2685-2701.
46. 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(1):143-152.
47. Puech P, Sufana-Iancu A, Renard B, Lemaitre L. Prostate MRI: can we do without DCE sequences in 2013? Diagn Interv Imaging 2013; 94(12):1299-1311.
48. Malyarenko DI, Newitt DJ, Wilmes L, et al. Demonstration of nonlinearity bias in the measurement of the apparent diffusion coefficient in multicenter trials. Magn Reson Med 2015 May 2. [Epub ahead of print.
49. 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(8):1820- 1828.
50. Park SY, Kim CK, Park BK, Kwon GY. Comparison of apparent diffusion coefficient calculation between two-point and multipoint B value analyses in prostate cancer and benign prostate tissue at 3 T: Preliminary experience. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2014;203(3): W287-W294.
51. Chesnais AL, Niaf E, Bratan F, et al. Differentiation of transitional zone prostate cancer from benign hyperplasia nodules: Evaluation of discriminant criteria at multiparametric MRI. Clin Radiol 2013;68(6):e323-e330.
52. Hoeks CM, Hambrock T, Yakar D, et al. Transition zone prostate cancer: detection and localization with 3-T multiparametric MR imaging. Radiology 2013;266(1):207-217.