nach oben

Erschienen in:

01.12.2014 | Original Article

Clinical utility of the normalized apparent diffusion coefficient for preoperative evaluation of the aggressiveness of prostate cancer

verfasst von: Ryo Itatani, Tomohiro Namimoto, Akira Yoshimura, Kazuhiro Katahira, Seiichiro Noda, Nobuyuki Toyonari, Kosuke Kitani, Yasuyuki Hamada, Mitsuhiko Kitaoka, Yasuyuki Yamashita

Erschienen in: Japanese Journal of Radiology | Ausgabe 12/2014

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose

Normalization of the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) may overcome ADC variability attributable to different patient and/or technical factors. The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of ADC and the normalized ADC (nADC) for differentiating between prostate cancer with a Gleason score (GS) = 6 and GS > 6 and to identify an optimum reference for nADC calculations.

Materials and methods

Our study population comprised 58 patients who underwent diffusion-weighted MRI followed by radical prostatectomy. The nADC of the prostate cancer was calculated as ADC (cancer)/ADC (reference) by using the obturator internus muscle, urine in the bladder, and a 20-ml saline bottle placed on the groin as references. We performed receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis to identify the optimum reference for nADC calculations.

Results

To differentiate between GS = 6 and GS > 6 prostate cancer, the area under the ROC curve of the nADC obtained with a saline bottle as reference was best (0.85) and significantly better than the area under the ADC ROC curve (0.71).

Conclusions

nADC is superior to ADC for estimating the aggressiveness of prostate cancer. It is a noninvasive technique that aids in the selection of appropriate treatments.

Jemal A, Bray F, Center MM, et al. Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin. 2011;61(2):69–90.PubMedCrossRef

Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, et al. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol. 2012;22(4):746–57.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

Itatani R, Namimoto T, Kajihara H, et al. Triage of low-risk prostate cancer patients with PSA levels 10 ng/ml or less: comparison of apparent diffusion coefficient value and transrectal ultrasound-guided target biopsy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2014;202(5):1051–7.PubMedCrossRef

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):453–61.PubMedCrossRef

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):488–95.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

Kitajima K, Takahashi S, Ueno Y, et al. Clinical utility of apparent diffusion coefficient values obtained using high b-value when diagnosing prostate cancer using 3 tesla MRI: comparison between ultra-high b-value (2000 s/mm²) and standard high b-value (1000 s/mm²). J Magn Reson Imaging. 2012;36(1):198–205.PubMedCrossRef

Hoehn-Berlage M, Eis M, Schmitz B. Regional and directional anisotropy of apparent diffusion coefficient in rat brain. NMR Biomed. 1999;12(1):45–50.PubMedCrossRef

DeLano MC, Cooper TG, Siebert JE, et al. High-b-value diffusion-weighted MR imaging of adult brain: image contrast and apparent diffusion coefficient map features. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2000;21(10):1830–6.PubMed

Mulkern RV, Barnes AS, Haker SJ, et al. Biexponential characterization of prostate tissue water diffusion decay curves over an extended b-factor range. Magn Reson Imaging. 2006;24(5):563–8.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

10.

Thoeny HC, De Keyzer F, Oyen RH, et al. Diffusion-weighted MR imaging of kidneys in healthy volunteers and patients with parenchymal diseases: initial experience. Radiology. 2005;235(3):911–7.PubMedCrossRef

11.

Bilgili Y, Unal B. Effect of region of interest on interobserver variance in apparent diffusion coefficient measures. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2004;25(1):108–11.PubMed

12.

Ulug AM, Beauchamp N Jr, Bryan RN, et al. Absolute quantitation of diffusion constants in human stroke. Stroke. 1997;28(3):483–90.PubMedCrossRef

13.

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):720–6.PubMedCrossRef

14.

Oh J, Henry RG, Pirzkall A, et al. Survival analysis in patients with glioblastoma multiforme: predictive value of choline-to-N-acetylaspartate index, apparent diffusion coefficient, and relative cerebral blood volume. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2004;19(5):546–54.PubMedCrossRef

15.

Do RK, Chandarana H, Felker E, et al. Diagnosis of liver fibrosis and cirrhosis with diffusion-weighted imaging: value of normalized apparent diffusion coefficient using the spleen as reference organ. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;195(3):671–6.PubMedCrossRef

16.

Barral M, Sebbag-Sfez D, Hoeffel C, et al. Characterization of focal pancreatic lesions using normalized apparent diffusion coefficient at 1.5-Tesla: preliminary experience. Diagn Interv Imaging. 2013;94(6):619–27.PubMedCrossRef

17.

Park SO, Kim JK, Kim KA, et al. Relative apparent diffusion coefficient: determination of reference site and validation of benefit for detecting metastatic lymph nodes in uterine cervical cancer. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2009;29(2):383–90.PubMedCrossRef

18.

Wang HJ, Pui MH, Guo Y, et al. Value of normalized apparent diffusion coefficient for estimating histological grade of vesical urothelial carcinoma. Clin Radiol. 2014;69(7):727–31.PubMedCrossRef

19.

Wang L, Mazaheri Y, Zhang J, et al. Assessment of biologic aggressiveness of prostate cancer: correlation of MR signal intensity with Gleason grade after radical prostatectomy. Radiology. 2008;246(1):168–76.PubMedCrossRef

20.

Jacobs MA, Ouwerkerk R, Petrowski K, et al. Diffusion-weighted imaging with apparent diffusion coefficient mapping and spectroscopy in prostate cancer. Top Magn Reson Imaging. 2008;19(6):261–72.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

21.

Haider MA, van der Kwast TH, Tanguay J, et al. Combined T2-weighted and diffusion-weighted MRI for localization of prostate cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007;189(2):323–8.PubMedCrossRef

22.

Kikuchi E, Scardino PT, Wheeler TM, et al. Is tumor volume an independent prognostic factor in clinically localized prostate cancer? J Urol. 2004;172(2):508–11.PubMedCrossRef

23.

Ohori M, Wheeler TM, Dunn JK, et al. The pathological features and prognosis of prostate cancer detectable with current diagnostic tests. J Urol. 1994;152(5 Pt 2):1714–20.PubMed

24.

Hosseinzadeh K, Schwarz SD. Endorectal diffusion-weighted imaging in prostate cancer to differentiate malignant and benign peripheral zone tissue. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2004;20(4):654–61.PubMedCrossRef

25.

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):804–14.PubMedCrossRef

26.

Braithwaite AC, Dale BM, Boll DT, et al. Short- and midterm reproducibility of apparent diffusion coefficient measurements at 3.0-T diffusion-weighted imaging of the abdomen. Radiology. 2009;250(2):459–65.PubMedCrossRef

27.

Sasaki M, Yamada K, Watanabe Y, et al. Variability in absolute apparent diffusion coefficient values across different platforms may be substantial: a multivendor, multi-institutional comparison study. Radiology. 2008;249(2):624–30.PubMedCrossRef

28.

Koh DM, Blackledge M, Collins DJ, et al. Reproducibility and changes in the apparent diffusion coefficients of solid tumours treated with combretastatin A4 phosphate and bevacizumab in a two-centre phase I clinical trial. Eur Radiol. 2009;19(11):2728–38.PubMedCrossRef

29.

Litjens GJ, Hambrock T, Hulsbergen-van de Kaa C, et al. Interpatient variation in normal peripheral zone apparent diffusion coefficient: effect on the prediction of prostate cancer aggressiveness. Radiology. 2012;265(1):260–6.PubMedCrossRef

30.

Kim CK, Park BK, Kim B. High-b-value diffusion-weighted imaging at 3T to detect prostate cancer: comparisons between b values of 1,000 and 2,000 s/mm2. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;194(1):W33–7.PubMedCrossRef

31.

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(3):775–84.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

32.

Lim HK, Kim JK, Kim KA, et al. Prostate cancer: apparent diffusion coefficient map with T2-weighted images for detection–a multireader study. Radiology. 2009;250(1):145–51.PubMedCrossRef

33.

Turkbey B, Pinto PA, Mani H, et al. Prostate cancer: value of multiparametric MR imaging at 3 T for detection–histopathologic correlation. Radiology. 2010;255(1):89–99.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

Titel: Clinical utility of the normalized apparent diffusion coefficient for preoperative evaluation of the aggressiveness of prostate cancer
verfasst von: Ryo Itatani
Tomohiro Namimoto
Akira Yoshimura
Kazuhiro Katahira
Seiichiro Noda
Nobuyuki Toyonari
Kosuke Kitani
Yasuyuki Hamada
Mitsuhiko Kitaoka
Yasuyuki Yamashita
Publikationsdatum: 01.12.2014
Verlag: Springer Japan
Erschienen in: Japanese Journal of Radiology / Ausgabe 12/2014
Print ISSN: 1867-1071
Elektronische ISSN: 1867-108X
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11604-014-0367-0

Neu im Fachgebiet Radiologie

18.04.2024 | Pädiatrische Notfallmedizin | Nachrichten

Update Radiologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Live-Webinar: Aktuelle Leitlinien bei Herz-Kreislauf-Erkrankungen

Springer Medizin

Clinical utility of the normalized apparent diffusion coefficient for preoperative evaluation of the aggressiveness of prostate cancer

Abstract

Purpose

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusions

Neu im Fachgebiet Radiologie

Fünf Dinge, die im Kindernotfall besser zu unterlassen sind

„Nur wer sich gut aufgehoben fühlt, kann auch für Patientensicherheit sorgen“

Wie toxische Männlichkeit der Gesundheit von Männern schadet

Studie bestätigt Potenzial von KI in der Radiologie

Update Radiologie

Live-Webinar: Aktuelle Leitlinien bei Herz-Kreislauf-Erkrankungen

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Purpose

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusions

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 12/2014

Hepatoid adenocarcinoma of the stomach: dual-time-point 18F-FDG PET/CT findings

Application of a deformable registration technique to investigate breath-hold reproducibility

A novel image toggle tool for comparison of serial mammograms: automatic density normalization and alignment—development of the tool and initial experience

Ultrasonographic findings of Kimura’s disease presenting in the upper extremities

Effectiveness of CT assists for intraarterial chemotherapy: therapeutic outcome of chemoradiation for advanced head and neck cancer extending across the anatomical midline

Reproducibility of coronary artery calcium measurements using 0.8-mm-thickness 256-slice coronary CT

Neu im Fachgebiet Radiologie

Fünf Dinge, die im Kindernotfall besser zu unterlassen sind

„Nur wer sich gut aufgehoben fühlt, kann auch für Patientensicherheit sorgen“

Wie toxische Männlichkeit der Gesundheit von Männern schadet

Studie bestätigt Potenzial von KI in der Radiologie

Update Radiologie