Correlation of multiparametric MRI with histopathological grade of peripheral zone prostate carcinoma.
Journal
Journal of cancer research and therapeutics
ISSN: 1998-4138
Titre abrégé: J Cancer Res Ther
Pays: India
ID NLM: 101249598
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Jan 2023
01 Jan 2023
Historique:
received:
04
02
2022
accepted:
06
07
2022
medline:
1
1
2023
pubmed:
1
1
2023
entrez:
22
2
2024
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Prostatic cancer is the second most common malignant tumor in men. Preoperative grading of prostate cancer is important for its management. Our objective is to compare individual and combined detection rates of T2-weighted imaging (T2WI), diffusion weighted imaging (DWI), dynamic contrast enhanced-magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI), and magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) for prostate cancer with histopathological diagnosis as its golden standard. Forty-four patients with positive digital rectal examination (DRE) findings and elevated prostate specific antigen (PSA), underwent multiparametric MRI (Mp-MRI). T2WI, DWI, DCE-MRI and MRS were done in all the patients. Cognitive magnetic resonance-transrectal ultrasound (MR-TRUS) fusion biopsy was done in all the patients. Sensitivity and specificity of T2WI, DWI, DCE-MRI, and Prostate Imaging - Reporting and Data System PIRADS version 2 was obtained. Apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) value and choline/citrate ratio were obtained for each lesion and correlated with histopathological grade. The mean age of the patients was 68.7 ± 10.1 years, and the mean serum PSA level was 58.1 ± 22.4 ng/dL. Of the 38 lesions in peripheral zone, 33 (87%) had histopathologically proven prostate cancer. T2WI had a sensitivity and specificity of 75.8% and 80% and DWI had a sensitivity and specificity of 90.9% and 80%, respectively, for detection of malignant prostatic lesion. The mean ADC values for prostate cancer, prostatitis, and normal prostatic parenchyma were 0.702 ± 0.094 × 10-3 mm2/sec, 0.959 ± 0.171 × 10-3 mm2/sec, and 1.31 ± 0.223 × 10-3 mm2/sec, respectively. Type 3 curve has lower sensitivity (45.5%) but high specificity (80%) for diagnosing prostate cancer. DWI can be useful to differentiate benign from malignant prostatic lesions, and low-grade from high-grade prostate carcinoma. ADC value has a positive correlation with histopathological grade of prostate cancer.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Prostatic cancer is the second most common malignant tumor in men. Preoperative grading of prostate cancer is important for its management. Our objective is to compare individual and combined detection rates of T2-weighted imaging (T2WI), diffusion weighted imaging (DWI), dynamic contrast enhanced-magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI), and magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) for prostate cancer with histopathological diagnosis as its golden standard.
METHODS
METHODS
Forty-four patients with positive digital rectal examination (DRE) findings and elevated prostate specific antigen (PSA), underwent multiparametric MRI (Mp-MRI). T2WI, DWI, DCE-MRI and MRS were done in all the patients. Cognitive magnetic resonance-transrectal ultrasound (MR-TRUS) fusion biopsy was done in all the patients. Sensitivity and specificity of T2WI, DWI, DCE-MRI, and Prostate Imaging - Reporting and Data System PIRADS version 2 was obtained. Apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) value and choline/citrate ratio were obtained for each lesion and correlated with histopathological grade.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The mean age of the patients was 68.7 ± 10.1 years, and the mean serum PSA level was 58.1 ± 22.4 ng/dL. Of the 38 lesions in peripheral zone, 33 (87%) had histopathologically proven prostate cancer. T2WI had a sensitivity and specificity of 75.8% and 80% and DWI had a sensitivity and specificity of 90.9% and 80%, respectively, for detection of malignant prostatic lesion. The mean ADC values for prostate cancer, prostatitis, and normal prostatic parenchyma were 0.702 ± 0.094 × 10-3 mm2/sec, 0.959 ± 0.171 × 10-3 mm2/sec, and 1.31 ± 0.223 × 10-3 mm2/sec, respectively. Type 3 curve has lower sensitivity (45.5%) but high specificity (80%) for diagnosing prostate cancer.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
DWI can be useful to differentiate benign from malignant prostatic lesions, and low-grade from high-grade prostate carcinoma. ADC value has a positive correlation with histopathological grade of prostate cancer.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38384020
doi: 10.4103/jcrt.jcrt_280_22
pii: 01363817-202319002-00016
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
S569-S576Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023 Copyright: © 2023 Journal of Cancer Research and Therapeutics.
Références
Catalona WJ, Richie JP, Ahmann FR, Hudson MA, Scardino PT, Flanigan RC, et al. Comparison of digital rectal examination and serum prostate specific antigen in the early detection of prostate cancer: Results of a multicenter clinical trial of 6,630 men. J Urol 2017;197:S200–7
Verma S, Rajesh A, Morales H, Lemen L, Bills G, Delworth M, 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
Vos EK, Litjens GJS, Kobus T, Hambrock T, Kaa CAH de, Barentsz JO, et al. Assessment of prostate cancer aggressiveness using dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging at 3T. Eur Urol 2013;64:448–55
Itou Y, Nakanishi K, Narumi Y, Nishizawa Y, Tsukuma H. 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 2011;33:167–72
Karaarslan E, Altan Kus A, Alis D, Karaarslan UC, Saglican Y, Argun OB. Performance of apparent diffusion coefficient values and ratios for the prediction of prostate cancer aggressiveness across different MRI acquisition settings. Diagn Interv Radiol 2022;28:12–20
Mytsyk YO, Borzhiyevskyy AT, Kobilnyk YS, Dutka IY, Shulyak AV, Vorobets DZ, et al. The role of the apparent diffusion coefficient of the biparametric mri as an imaging marker of prostate cancer. Probl Radiac Med Radiobiol 2021;26:541–53
Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, Cornud F, Haider MA, Macura KJ, et al. PI-RADS Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System: 2015, Version 2. Eur Urol 2016;69:16–40
Li W, Sun Y, Wu Y, Lu F, Xu H. The quantitative assessment of using multiparametric mri for prediction of extraprostatic extension in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Oncol 2021;11:771864
Hoeks CMA, Barentsz JO, Hambrock T, Yakar D, Somford DM, Heijmink SWTPJ, et al. Prostate cancer: Multiparametric MR imaging for detection, localization, and staging. Radiology 2011;261:46–66
Tamada T, Sone T, Jo Y, Toshimitsu S, Yamashita T, Yamamoto A, 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;28:720–6
Turkbey B, Shah VP, Pang Y, Bernardo M, Xu S, Kruecker J, et al. Is Apparent diffusion coefficient associated with clinical risk scores for prostate cancers that are visible on 3-T MR images?. Radiology 2011;258:488–95
Pepe P, D'Urso D, Garufi A, Priolo G, Pennisi M, Russo G, et al. Multiparametric MRI apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) accuracy in diagnosing clinically significant prostate cancer. In Vivo 2017;31:415–8
Pickles MD, Gibbs P, Sreenivas M, Turnbull LW. Diffusion-weighted imaging of normal and malignant prostate tissue at 3.0T. J Magn Reson Imaging 2006;23:130–4
Kim JH, Kim JK, Park B-W, Kim N, Cho K-S. Apparent diffusion coefficient: Prostate cancer versus noncancerous tissue according to anatomical region. J Magn Reson Imaging 2008;28:1173–9
Hambrock T, Somford DM, Huisman HJ, van Oort IM, Witjes JA, Hulsbergen-van de Kaa CA, et al. Relationship between apparent diffusion coefficients at 3.0-T MR imaging and gleason grade in peripheral zone prostate cancer. Radiology 2011;259:453–61
Nagel KN, Schouten MG, Hambrock T, Litjens GJ, Hoeks CM, ten Haken B, et al. Differentiation of prostatitis and prostate cancer by using diffusion-weighted MR imaging and MR-guided biopsy at 3 T. Radiology 2013;267:164–72
Erbersdobler A, Isbarn H, Dix K, Steiner I, Schlomm T, Mirlacher M, et al. Prognostic value of microvessel density in prostate cancer: A tissue microarray study. World J Urol 2010;28:687–92
Boschheidgen M, Schimmöller L, Arsov C, Ziayee F, Morawitz J, Valentin B, et al. MRI grading for the prediction of prostate cancer aggressiveness. Eur Radiol 2022;32:2351–9
Ma X-Z, Lv K, Sheng J-L, Yu Y-X, Pang P-P, Xu M-S, et al. Application evaluation of DCEMRI combined with quantitative analysis of DWI for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Oncol Lett 2019;17:3077–84
Kim SH, Choi MS, Kim MJ, Kim YH, Cho SH. Role of semi–quantitative dynamic contrast–enhanced MR imaging in characterization and grading of prostate cancer. Eur J Radiol 2017;94:154–9
Purysko AS, Rosenkrantz AB, Barentsz JO, Weinreb JC, Macura KJ. PI-RADS Version 2: A pictorial update. RadioGraphics 2016;36:1354–72
Costello LC, Franklin RB, Narayan P. Citrate in the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Prostate 1999;38:237–45
Giusti S, Caramella D, Fruzzetti E, Lazzereschi M, Tognetti A, Bartolozzi C. Peripheral zone prostate cancer. Pre-treatment evaluation with MR and 3D 1H MR spectroscopic imaging: Correlation with pathologic findings. Abdom Imaging 2010;35:757–63
Mohan H, Bal A, Punia RPS, Bawa AS. Granulomatous prostatitis-An infrequent diagnosis. Int J Urol 2005;12:474–8
Röthke M, Blondin D. PI-RADS classification: Structured reporting for MRI of the prostate. Rofo 2013;185:253–61
Kelalis PP, Greene LF, Harrison EG. Granulomatous Prostatitis: A mimic of carcinoma of the prostate. JAMA 1965;191:287–9
Meier-Schroers M, Kukuk G, Wolter K, Decker G, Fischer S, Marx C, et al. Differentiation of prostatitis and prostate cancer using the Prostate Imaging—Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS). Eur J Radiol 2016;85:1304–11
Gaur AS. STHLM3-MRI study: Role of magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy in prostate cancer screening. Indian J Urol 2022;38:71–2
Hamoen EHJ, de Rooij M, Witjes JA, Barentsz JO, Rovers MM. Use of the prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS) for prostate cancer detection with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: A diagnostic meta-analysis. Eur Urol 2015;67:1112–21
Zhang L, Tang M, Chen S, Lei X, Zhang X, Huan Y. A meta-analysis of use of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2 (PI-RADS V2) with multiparametric MR imaging for the detection of prostate cancer. Eur Radiol 2017 12 27 12: 5204–14