Background
Methods
Study population
Mean | SD | Median | Range | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Age (years) | 71.3 | 7.5 | 72 | 52–82 |
Days PSMA-PET to MRI | 50.2 | 32.5 | 42 | 1–110 |
PI-RADS score | 4.7 | 0.6 | 5 | 3–5 |
Days GSc to PSMA-PET | 74.2 | 80.2 | 46 | 3–299 |
Gleason score | 7.9 | 1.1 | 8 | 6–10 |
Days PSA to PSMA-PET | 16.2 | 25.6 | 3 | 0–84 |
PSA (ng/ml) | 17.7 | 21.5 | 11 | 0.23–116 |
VTV (cm3) | 12.3 | 11.3 | 9 | 0.8–54.1 |
Positron emission tomography tracer
Imaging protocol
Asphericity
Imaging analysis
Viable tumor volume and tumor lesion binding rate
Gleason score
TNM and D’Amico classification
Prostate imaging reporting and data system
Standardized uptake value
Statistical analysis
Results
Association of asphericity with histopathology
Probability of Gleason score based on asphericity
Association of asphericity with D’Amico classification, N-stage, and PI-RADS score
GSC | D’Amico classification | N-stage | PI-RADS score | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
ASP (%) | Rho |
0.88
|
0.6
| − 0.07 | 0.26 |
p value |
p < 0.05
|
p < 0.05
|
p > 0.05 |
p > 0.05 | |
CI 95% |
0.78–0.94
|
0.32–0.78
| − 0.51–0.4 | − 0.11–0.57 | |
VTV (cm3) | Rho |
0.51
|
0.49
| − 0.06 | 0.33 |
p value |
p < 0.05
|
p < 0.05
|
p > 0.05 |
p > 0.05 | |
CI 95% |
0.23–0.72
|
0.17–0.71
| − 0.5–0.4 | − 0.04–0.62 | |
TLB | Rho |
0.43
|
0.38
| 0 | 0.3 |
p value |
p < 0.05
|
p < 0.05
|
p > 0.05 |
p > 0.05 | |
CI 95% |
0.12–0.66
|
0.04–0.64
| − 0.45–0.45 | − 0.07–0.6 | |
SUVmax | Rho | 0.29 | 0.29 | − 0.14 | 0.22 |
p value |
p > 0.05 |
p > 0.05 |
p > 0.05 |
p > 0.05 | |
CI 95% | − 0.04–0.56 | − 0.06–0.58 | − 0.56–0.33 | − 0.15–0.54 | |
SUVmean | Rho | 0.24 | 0.2 | 0.13 | 0.1 |
p value |
p > 0.05 |
p > 0.05 |
p > 0.05 |
p > 0.05 | |
CI 95% | − 0.09–0.53 | − 0.15–0.51 | − 0.35–0.55 | − 0.27–0.44 | |
SUVpeak | Rho | 0.3 | 0.3 | − 0.05 | 0.13 |
p value |
p > 0.05 |
p > 0.05 |
p > 0.05 |
p > 0.05 | |
CI 95% | − 0.03–0.57 | − 0.05–0.58 | − 0.49–0.42 | − 0.24–0.47 | |
PSA (ng/ml) | Rho | 0.27 | 0.15 | 0.07 | 0.12 |
p value |
p > 0.05 |
p > 0.05 |
p > 0.05 |
p > 0.05 | |
CI 95% | − 0.06–0.55 | − 0.21–0.47 | − 0.4–0.51 | − 0.25–0.46 |
Association of viable tumor volume with Gleason score, D’Amico classification, N-stage, and PI-RADS score
Association of total lesion binding rate with Gleason score, D’Amico classification, N-stage, and PI-RADS score
Association of maximum, peak and mean standardized uptake values with Gleason score, D’Amico classification, N-stage, and PI-RADS score
Association of prostate-specific antigen blood level with Gleason score, D’Amico classification, N-stage, and PI-RADS score
Prognostic estimation of Gleason scores using asphericity, viable tumor volume, and total lesion binding rate on multivariable analysis
Estimate |
p value | Confidence interval 95% | |
---|---|---|---|
ASP (%) | 0.71 |
p < 0.05 | 0.35–1.06 |
VTV (cm3) | 0.36 |
p < 0.05 | 0.03–0.69 |
TLB | − 0.02 |
p > 0.05 | − 0.04–0.004 |
Association of maximum, peak and mean standardized uptake values and prostate-specific antigen blood level with asphericity, viable tumor volume, and total lesion binding rate
ASP (%) | VTV (cm3) | TLB | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
SUVmax | Rho | 0.23 | 0.58 | 0.71 |
p value |
p > 0.05 |
p < 0.05 |
p < 0.05 | |
CI 95% | − 0.1–0.51 | 0.32–0.76 | 0.5–0.84 | |
SUVmean | Rho | 0.17 | 0.68 | 0.84 |
p value |
p > 0.05 |
p < 0.05 |
p < 0.05 | |
CI 95% | − 0.17–0.47 | 0.46–0.83 | 0.7–0.91 | |
SUVpeak | Rho | 0.15 | 0.62 | 0.77 |
p value |
p > 0.05 |
p < 0.05 |
p < 0.05 | |
CI 95% | − 0.19–0.45 | 0.38–0.79 | 0.59–0.88 | |
PSA (ng/ml) | Rho | 0.25 | 0.32 | 0.22 |
p value |
p > 0.05 |
p > 0.05 |
p > 0.05 | |
CI 95% | − 0.08–0.53 | − 0.04–0.58 | − 0.11–0.51 |