nach oben

Magnetic Resonance Materials in Physics, Biology and Medicine

Erschienen in:

10.03.2016 | Research Article

Amide proton transfer (APT) magnetic resonance imaging of prostate cancer: comparison with Gleason scores

verfasst von: Yukihisa Takayama, Akihiro Nishie, Masaaki Sugimoto, Osamu Togao, Yoshiki Asayama, Kousei Ishigami, Yasuhiro Ushijima, Daisuke Okamoto, Nobuhiro Fujita, Akira Yokomizo, Jochen Keupp, Hiroshi Honda

Erschienen in: Magnetic Resonance Materials in Physics, Biology and Medicine | Ausgabe 4/2016

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Objective

To evaluate the utility of amide proton transfer (APT) imaging in estimating the Gleason score (GS) of prostate cancer (Pca).

Materials and methods

Sixty-six biopsy-proven cancers were categorized into four groups according to the GS: GS-6 (3 + 3); GS-7 (3 + 4/4 + 3); GS-8 (4 + 4) and GS-9 (4 + 5/5 + 4). APT signal intensities (APT SIs) and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values of each GS group were compared by one-way analysis of variance with Tukey’s HSD post hoc test.

Results

The mean and standard deviation of the APT SIs (%) and ADC values (×10⁻³ mm²/s) were as follows: GS-6, 2.48 ± 0.59 and 1.16 ± 0.26; GS-7, 5.17 ± 0.66 and 0.92 ± 0.18; GS-8, 2.56 ± 0.85 and 0.86 ± 0.17; GS-9, 1.96 ± 0.75 and 0.85 ± 0.18, respectively. The APT SI of the GS-7 group was highest, and there were significant differences between the GS-6 and GS-7 groups and the GS-7 and GS-9 groups (p < 0.05). The ADC value of the GS-6 group was significantly higher than each value of the GS-7, GS-8, and GS-9 groups (p < 0.05), but no significant differences were obtained among the GS-7, GS-8, and GS-9 groups.

Conclusion

The mean APT SI in Pca with a GS of 7 was higher than that for the other GS groups.

Damber JE, Aus G (2008) Prostate cancer. Lancet 371:1710–1721CrossRefPubMed

Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A (2012) Cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin 62:10–29CrossRefPubMed

Mohler JL, Kantoff PW, Armstrong AJ et al (2014) Prostate cancer, version 2.2014. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 12:686–718PubMed

Epstein JI (2006) What’s new in prostate cancer disease assessment in 2006? Curr Opin Urol 16:146–151CrossRefPubMed

Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC, Jr, Amin MB, Egevad LL, Committee IG (2005) The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 29:1228–1242CrossRefPubMed

Gleason DF (1966) Classification of prostatic carcinomas. Cancer Chemother Rep 50:125–128PubMed

Gleason DF, Mellinger GT (1974) Prediction of prognosis for prostatic adenocarcinoma by combined histological grading and clinical staging. J Urol 111:58–64PubMed

Itou Y, Nakanishi K, Narumi Y, Nishizawa Y, Tsukuma H (2011) Clinical utility of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values in patients with prostate cancer: can ADC values contribute to assess the aggressiveness of prostate cancer? J Magn Reson Imaging 33:167–172CrossRefPubMed

Kobus T, Vos PC, Hambrock T et al (2012) Prostate cancer aggressiveness: in vivo assessment of MR spectroscopy and diffusion-weighted imaging at 3 T. Radiology 265:457–467CrossRefPubMed

10.

Vaché T, Bratan F, Mège-Lechevallier F, Roche S, Rabilloud M, Rouvière O (2014) Characterization of prostate lesions as benign or malignant at multiparametric MR imaging: comparison of three scoring systems in patients treated with radical prostatectomy. Radiology 272:446–455CrossRefPubMed

11.

Vargas HA, Akin O, Franiel T et al (2011) Diffusion-weighted endorectal MR imaging at 3 T for prostate cancer: tumor detection and assessment of aggressiveness. Radiology 259:775–784CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

12.

Verma S, Rajesh A, Morales H et al (2011) Assessment of aggressiveness of prostate cancer: correlation of apparent diffusion coefficient with histologic grade after radical prostatectomy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 196:374–381CrossRefPubMed

13.

Litjens GJ, Barentsz JO, Karssemeijer N, Huisman HJ (2015) Clinical evaluation of a computer-aided diagnosis system for determining cancer aggressiveness in prostate MRI. Eur Radiol 25:318–3199CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

14.

Zhang YD, Wang Q, Wu CJ et al (2015) The histogram analysis of diffusion-weighted intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) imaging for differentiating the Gleason grade of prostate cancer. Eur Radiol 25:994–1004CrossRefPubMed

15.

Zhou J, Blakeley JO, Hua J et al (2008) Practical data acquisition method for human brain tumor amide proton transfer (APT) imaging. Magn Reson Med 60:842–849CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

16.

Zhou J, Payen JF, Wilson DA, Traystman RJ, van Zijl PC (2003) Using the amide proton signals of intracellular proteins and peptides to detect pH effects in MRI. Nat Med 9:1085–1090CrossRefPubMed

17.

Togao O, Yoshiura T, Keupp J et al (2014) Amide proton transfer imaging of adult diffuse gliomas: correlation with histopathological grades. Neuro Oncol 16:441–448CrossRefPubMed

18.

Dula AN, Arlinghaus LR, Dortch RD et al (2013) Amide proton transfer imaging of the breast at 3 T: establishing reproducibility and possible feasibility assessing chemotherapy response. Magn Reson Med 70:216–224CrossRefPubMed

19.

Jia G, Abaza R, Williams JD et al (2011) Amide proton transfer MR imaging of prostate cancer: a preliminary study. J Magn Reson Imaging 33:647–654CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

20.

Tamada T, Sone T, Jo Y et al (2008) Prostate cancer: relationships between postbiopsy hemorrhage and tumor detectability at MR diagnosis. Radiology 248:531–539CrossRefPubMed

21.

Keupp J, Baltes C, Harver P, Van den Brink J (2011) Parallel RF Transmission based MRI Technique for Highly Sensitive Detection of Amide Proton Transfer in the Human Brain at 3. In: Proceedings of 19th Annual Meeting of International Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, Québec, p 710

22.

Agarwal HK, Keupp J, Bornardo M, Turkbey B, Choyke PL (2015) Saturation duration and power optimization for APT MRI of prostate cancer. In: Proceedings of 23rd Annual Meeting of International Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, Toronto, p 3851

23.

Nagarajan R, Margolis D, Raman S et al (2012) MR spectroscopic imaging and diffusion-weighted imaging of prostate cancer with Gleason scores. J Magn Reson Imaging 36:697–703CrossRefPubMed

24.

Oto A, Yang C, Kayhan A et al (2011) Diffusion-weighted and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI of prostate cancer: correlation of quantitative MR parameters with Gleason score and tumor angiogenesis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 197:1382–1390CrossRefPubMed

25.

Tamada T, Sone T, Jo Y et al (2008) 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 28:720–726CrossRefPubMed

26.

Turkbey B, Shah VP, Pang Y et al (2011) Is apparent diffusion coefficient associated with clinical risk scores for prostate cancers that are visible on 3-T MR images? Radiology 258:488–495CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

27.

Donati OF, Mazaheri Y, Afaq A et al (2014) Prostate cancer aggressiveness: assessment with whole-lesion histogram analysis of the apparent diffusion coefficient. Radiology 271:143–152CrossRefPubMed

28.

Mazaheri Y, Shukla-Dave A, Hricak H et al (2008) Prostate cancer: identification with combined diffusion-weighted MR imaging and 3D 1H MR spectroscopic imaging—correlation with pathologic findings. Radiology 246:480–488CrossRefPubMed

29.

Wang XZ, Wang B, Gao ZQ et al (2009) Diffusion-weighted imaging of prostate cancer: correlation between apparent diffusion coefficient values and tumor proliferation. J Magn Reson Imaging 29:1360–1366CrossRefPubMed

30.

Langer DL, van der Kwast TH, Evans AJ et al (2010) Prostate tissue composition and MR measurements: investigating the relationships between ADC, T2, K(trans), v(e), and corresponding histologic features. Radiology 255:485–494CrossRefPubMed

31.

Tan CH, Wang J, Kundra V (2011) Diffusion weighted imaging in prostate cancer. Eur Radiol 21:593–603CrossRefPubMed

32.

Zelhof B, Pickles M, Liney G et al (2009) Correlation of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance data with cellularity in prostate cancer. BJU Int 103:883–888CrossRefPubMed

33.

Humphrey PA (2004) Gleason grading and prognostic factors in carcinoma of the prostate. Mod Pathol 17:292–306CrossRefPubMed

34.

Nguyen K, Sarkar A, Jain AK (2014) Prostate cancer grading: use of graph cut and spatial arrangement of nuclei. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 33:2254–2270CrossRefPubMed

35.

Freedland SJ, Kane CJ, Amling CL et al (2007) Upgrading and downgrading of prostate needle biopsy specimens: risk factors and clinical implications. Urology 69:495–499CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

36.

Sakr WA, Tefilli MV, Grignon DJ et al (2000) Gleason score 7 prostate cancer: a heterogeneous entity? Correlation with pathologic parameters and disease-free survival. Urology 56:730–734CrossRefPubMed

Titel: Amide proton transfer (APT) magnetic resonance imaging of prostate cancer: comparison with Gleason scores
verfasst von: Yukihisa Takayama
Akihiro Nishie
Masaaki Sugimoto
Osamu Togao
Yoshiki Asayama
Kousei Ishigami
Yasuhiro Ushijima
Daisuke Okamoto
Nobuhiro Fujita
Akira Yokomizo
Jochen Keupp
Hiroshi Honda
Publikationsdatum: 10.03.2016
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in: Magnetic Resonance Materials in Physics, Biology and Medicine / Ausgabe 4/2016
Print ISSN: 0968-5243
Elektronische ISSN: 1352-8661
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10334-016-0537-4

Update Radiologie

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

Newsletter bestellen

Springer Medizin

Amide proton transfer (APT) magnetic resonance imaging of prostate cancer: comparison with Gleason scores