We found a match
Your institution may have access to this item. Find your institution then sign in to continue.
- Title
Comparison of quantitative apparent diffusion coefficient parameters with prostate imaging reporting and data system V2 assessment for detection of clinically significant peripheral zone prostate cancer.
- Authors
Hassanzadeh, Elmira; Alessandrino, Francesco; Olubiyi, Olutayo I.; Glazer, Daniel I.; Mulkern, Robert V.; Fedorov, Andriy; Tempany, Clare M.; Fennessy, Fiona M.
- Abstract
Purpose: To compare diagnostic performance of PI-RADSv2 with ADC parameters to identify clinically significant prostate cancer (csPC) and to determine the impact of csPC definitions on diagnostic performance of ADC and PI-RADSv2.Methods: We retrospectively identified treatment-naïve pathology-proven peripheral zone PC patients who underwent 3T prostate MRI, using high<italic> b</italic>-value diffusion-weighted imaging from 2011 to 2015. Using 3D slicer, areas of suspected tumor (T) and normal tissue (N) on ADC (<italic>b</italic> = 0, 1400) were outlined volumetrically. Mean ADCT, mean ADCN, ADCratio (ADCT/ADCN) were calculated. PI-RADSv2 was assigned. Three csPC definitions were used: (A) Gleason score (GS) ≥ 4 + 3; (B) GS ≥ 3 + 4; (C) MRI-based tumor volume >0.5 cc. Performances of ADC parameters and PI-RADSv2 in identifying csPC were measured using nonparametric comparison of receiver operating characteristic curves using the area under the curve (AUC).Results: Eighty five cases met eligibility requirements. Diagnostic performances (AUC) in identifying csPC using three definitions were: (A) ADCT (0.83) was higher than PI-RADSv2 (0.65, <italic>p</italic> = 0.006); (B) ADCT (0.86) was higher than ADCratio (0.68, <italic>p</italic> < 0.001), and PI-RADSv2 (0.70, <italic>p</italic> = 0.04); (C) PI-RADSv2 (0.73) performed better than ADCratio (0.56, <italic>p</italic> = 0.02). ADCT performance was higher when csPC was defined by A or B versus C (<italic>p</italic> = 0.038 and <italic>p</italic> = 0.01, respectively). ADCratio performed better when csPC was defined by A versus C (<italic>p</italic> = 0.01). PI-RADSv2 performance was not affected by csPC definition.Conclusions: When csPC was defined by GS, ADC parameters provided better csPC discrimination than PI-RADSv2, with ADCT providing best result. When csPC was defined by MRI-calculated volume, PI-RADSv2 provided better discrimination than ADCratio. csPC definition did not affect PI-RADSv2 diagnostic performance.
- Subjects
UNITED States; DIAGNOSIS; PROSTATE cancer; MAGNETIC resonance imaging; RETROSPECTIVE studies; GLEASON grading system; CANCER
- Publication
Abdominal Radiology, 2018, Vol 43, Issue 5, p1237
- ISSN
2366-004X
- Publication type
Article
- DOI
10.1007/s00261-017-1297-y