Assessment of measured in multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging diffusion coefficient potential for low malignancy score determination in PC after radical prostatectomy

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

Objective. To evaluate correlation of measured diffusion coefficient - MDC (tumor MDC and MDS ratio) with final malignancy degree after radical prostatectomy (RP). Materials and methods. The study included 118 patients with prostate cancer in whom RP was performed between 2012 and 2017 after 3 Tesla contrast-enhanced multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) in one medical center. After MRI results analysis mean MDC of tumor tissue (tumor MDC) and normal tissue (normal tissue MDC) were determined according to MDC records and MDC ratio was calculated (division of tumor MDC by normal tissue MDC). Results. A significant negative moderate correlation (Spearman correlation coefficient = -0.733, p=0.000) was found between tumor MDC and postoperative tumor cells differentiation degree. Similar correlation was also found for MDS ratio with higher Spearman correlation coefficient = -0.802, p=0.000. In ROC-analysis of PC discrimination Gleason 6 from Gleason ≥7 area under ROC-curve (AUC) for tumor MDC was 0.898 (95% confidence interval - CI 0.835-0.961) and for MDC ratio - 0.950 (95% CI 0.909-0.992). When tumor MDC≥0,78 was used as a criteria for Gleason 6 (grade group 1) sensitivity was 78% and specificity - 98%. When MDC rate ≥0.4501 was used sensitivity and specificity comprised 92 and 93%, respectively. Conclusion. When measured in postoperative pathomorphological study tumor MDC measurement has significant negative correlation with final malignancy rate of PC Gleason 6 (grade group 1). MDS ratio had somewhat stronger correlation that is more precise after Gleason score division 6 (3+3) from ≥(3+4).

About the authors

D. A Goncharuk

Russian Medical Academy of Continuous Professional Education of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation

Email: gonch.urology@yandex.ru
аспирант, ст. лаборант каф. урологии и хирургической андрологии 125993, Russian Federation, Moscow, ul. Barrikadnaia, d. 2/1

E. I Veliev

Russian Medical Academy of Continuous Professional Education of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation; S.P.Botkin City Сlinical Hospital of the Department of Health of Moscow

д-р мед. наук, проф. каф. урологии и хирургической андрологии 125993, Russian Federation, Moscow, ul. Barrikadnaia, d. 2/1; 125284, Russian Federation, Moscow, 2-i Botkinskii pr-d, d. 5

E. A Sokolov

Russian Medical Academy of Continuous Professional Education of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation; S.P.Botkin City Сlinical Hospital of the Department of Health of Moscow

ассистент каф. урологии и хирургической андрологии; врач-уролог 14-го урологического отд-ния 125993, Russian Federation, Moscow, ul. Barrikadnaia, d. 2/1; 125284, Russian Federation, Moscow, 2-i Botkinskii pr-d, d. 5

I. V Shabunin

Medical and diagnostic center “Patero-Clinic”

зав. отд-нием лучевой диагностики, врач-рентгенолог 129226, Russian Federation, Moscow, pr. Mira, d. 211, k. 2

O. V Paklina

S.P.Botkin City Сlinical Hospital of the Department of Health of Moscow

зав. патологоанатомическим отд-нием 125284, Russian Federation, Moscow, 2-i Botkinskii pr-d, d. 5

G. R Setdikova

S.P.Botkin City Сlinical Hospital of the Department of Health of Moscow

врач-патологоанатом 125284, Russian Federation, Moscow, 2-i Botkinskii pr-d, d. 5

References

  1. Epstein J.I, Allsbrook W.C, Amin M.B, Egevad L.L. The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 2005; 29: 1228-42.
  2. Ahmed H.U, Arya M, Freeman A et al. Do low-grade and low-volume prostate cancers bear the hallmarks of malignancy? Lancet Oncol 2012; 13 (11): e509-17.
  3. Musunuru H.B, Yamamoto T, Klotz L et al. Active surveillance for intermediate risk prostate cancer: survival outcomes in the Sunnybrook experience. J Urol 2016; 196 (6): 1651-8.
  4. Epstein J.I, Zelefsky M.J, Sjoberg D.D et al. A contemporary prostate cancer grading system: a validated alternative to the Gleason score. Eur Urol 2016; 69 (3): 428-35.
  5. Epstein J.I, Feng Z, Trock B.J, Pierorazio P.M. Upgrading and downgrading of prostate cancer from biopsy to radical prostatectomy: incidence and predictive factors using the modified Gleason grading system and factoring in tertiary grades. Eur Urol 2012; 61: 1019-24.
  6. Oto A, Kayhan A, Jiang Y et al. Prostate cancer: differentiation of central gland cancer from benign prostatic hyperplasia by using diffusion-weighted and dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 2010; 257: 715-23.
  7. Litjens G.J.S, 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: 260-6.
  8. Verma S, Rajesh A, Morales H et al. Assessment of aggressiveness of prostate cancer: correlation of apparent diffusion coefficient with histologic grade after radical prostatectomy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2011; 196: 374-81.
  9. Hambrock T, Somford D.M, Huisman H.J et al. Relationship between apparent diffusion coefficients at 3.0-T MR imaging and Gleason gradein peripheral zone prostate cancer. Radiology 2011; 259: 453-61.
  10. Vargas H.A, 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: 775-84.
  11. Jung S, Donati O.F, Vargas H.A et al. Transition zone prostate cancer: incremental value of diffusion-weighted endorectal MR imaging in tumor detection and assessment of aggressiveness. Radiology 2013; 269: 493-503.
  12. Barentsz J.O, Richenberg J, Clements R et al. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 2012; 22: 746-57.
  13. Kim C.K, Park B.K, Kim B. High-b-value diffusion-weighted imaging at 3 T to detect prostate cancer: comparisons between b values of 1,000 and 2,000 s/mm2. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010; 194: W33-37.
  14. Zelhof B, Pickles M, Liney G et al. Correlation of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance data with cellularity in prostate cancer. BJU Int 2009; 103: 883-88.
  15. Gibbs P, Liney G.P, Pickles M.D et al. Correlation of ADC and T2measurements with cell density in prostate cancer at 3.0 Tesla. Invest Radiol 2009; 44: 572-6.
  16. Simpkin C.J, Morgan V.A, Giles S.L et al. Relationship between T2 relaxation andapparent diffusion coefficient in malignant and non-malignant prostate regions and the effect ofperipheral zone fractional volume. Br J Radiol 2013; 86: 20120469.
  17. Kim J.H, Kim J.K, Park B-W et al. Apparent diffusion coefficient: prostate cancer versus noncancerous tissue according to anatomical region. J Magn Reson Imaging 2008; 28: 1173-9.
  18. Thormer G, Otto J, Horn L-C et al. Non-invasive estimation of prostate cancer aggressiveness using diffusion-weighted MRI and 3D proton MR spectroscopy at 3.0 T. Acta Radiol 2014 [Epub ahead of print].
  19. Lebovici A, Sfrangeu S.A, Feier D et al. Evaluation of the normal-todiseased apparent diffusion coefficient ratio as an indicator of prostate cancer aggressiveness. BMC Med Imaging 2014; 14: 15.
  20. Rosenkrantz A.B, Kopec M, Kong X et al. Prostate cancer vs. postbiopsy hemorrhage: diagnosis with T2- and diffusion-weighted imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 2010; 31: 1387-94.
  21. Langer D.L, van der Kwast T.H, Evans A.J et al. Intermixed normal tissue within prostate cancer: effect on MR imaging measurements of apparent diffusion coefficient and T2-sparse versus dense cancers. Radiology 2008; 249: 900-8.
  22. Merret C et al. Magnet before the Needle: Commentary on MRI-Targeted or Standard Biopsy for Prostate-Cancer Diagnosis (PRECISION Trial). Urology 2018.

Copyright (c) 2018 Consilium Medicum

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies