Surgical Planning Laboratory - Brigham & Women's Hospital - Boston, Massachusetts USA - a teaching affiliate of Harvard Medical School

Surgical Planning Laboratory

The Publication Database hosted by SPL

All Publications | Upload | Advanced Search | Gallery View | Download Statistics | Help | Import | Log in

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

Institution:
1Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
2Department of Radiology, Boston Children's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Publisher:
Springer
Publication Date:
May-2018
Journal:
Abdom Radiol (NY)
Volume Number:
43
Issue Number:
5
Pages:
1237-44
Citation:
Abdom Radiol (NY). 2018 May;43(5):1237-44.
PubMed ID:
28840280
PMCID:
PMC5826788
Keywords:
Apparent diffusion coefficient, Diffusion-weighted imaging, Gleason score, Magnetic resonance imaging, PI-RADSv2, Prostate cancer
Appears in Collections:
NCIGT, Prostate Group, SLICER
Sponsors:
P41 EB015898/EB/NIBIB NIH HHS/United States
R25 CA089017/CA/NCI NIH HHS/United States
U01 CA151261/CA/NCI NIH HHS/United States
Generated Citation:
Hassanzadeh E., Alessandrino F., Olubiyi O.I., Glazer D.I., Mulkern R.V., Fedorov A., Tempany C.M., Fennessy F.M. 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. Abdom Radiol (NY). 2018 May;43(5):1237-44. PMID: 28840280. PMCID: PMC5826788.
Downloaded: 17 times. [view map]
Paper: Download, View online
Export citation:
Google Scholar: link

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 b-value diffusion-weighted imaging from 2011 to 2015. Using 3D slicer, areas of suspected tumor (T) and normal tissue (N) on ADC (b = 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, p = 0.006); (B) ADCT (0.86) was higher than ADCratio (0.68, p < 0.001), and PI-RADSv2 (0.70, p = 0.04); (C) PI-RADSv2 (0.73) performed better than ADCratio (0.56, p = 0.02). ADCT performance was higher when csPC was defined by A or B versus C (p = 0.038 and p = 0.01, respectively). ADCratio performed better when csPC was defined by A versus C (p = 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.