Top

Abdominal Radiology

Published in:

01-12-2020 | Prostate Cancer | Pelvis

Comparison of diagnostic performance between diffusion kurtosis imaging parameters and mono-exponential ADC for determination of clinically significant cancer in patients with prostate cancer

Authors: Hyungin Park, Seung Ho Kim, Yedaun Lee, Jung Hee Son

Published in: Abdominal Radiology | Issue 12/2020

Abstract

Purpose

To compare the diagnostic performance between diffusion kurtosis imaging (DKI) parameters and mono-exponential apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) for determination of clinically significant cancer (CSC, Gleason score (GS) ≥ 7) in patients with histologically proven prostate cancer (PCa).

Methods

A total of 92 patients (mean age: 71.5 years, range: 47–89 years) who had been diagnosed as PCa and undergone 3 T-MRI including DWI (b values, 0, 100, 1000, 2000s/mm²) were included in this study. The DKI parameters, namely apparent diffusion for non-Gaussian distribution (D_app) and apparent kurtosis coefficient (K_app), were calculated by dedicated software using mono-exponential and diffusion kurtosis models for quantitation. The measurement was performed for a whole tumor after segmentation, and pathologic topographic maps or systemic biopsy results served as the reference standard for segmentation. To compare the diagnostic performance of each parameter for determination of CSC, pair-wise comparison of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves was performed.

Results

The study population consisted of GS 6 (n = 18), GS 7 (n = 31), GS 8 (n = 25), GS 9 (n = 15) and GS 10 (n = 3) patients. The area under the ROC curve of K_app (0.707, 95% CI 0.603–0.798) for discriminating CSC from non-CSC was not significantly different from those of mono-exponential ADC (0.725, 0.622–0.813, P = 0.2175) or D_app (0.726, 0.623–0.814, P = 0.9628). Diagnostic predictive values of K_app were estimated to a maximum accuracy of 78%, a sensitivity of 86%, and a specificity of 47%, while those of mono-exponential ADC were 75, 81, and 53%, respectively.

Conclusion

The DKI parameters showed a diagnostic performance comparable to mono-exponential ADC for determination of CSC in patients with PCa.

Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A (2018-2020) Global Cancer Statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA Cancer J Clin 68:394-424. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21492

Corcoran NM, Hong MK, Casey RG, Hurtado-Coll A, Peters J, Harewood L, Goldenberg SL, Hovens CM, Costello AJ, Gleave ME (2011) Upgrade in Gleason score between prostate biopsies and pathology following radical prostatectomy significantly impacts upon the risk of biochemical recurrence. BJU international 108 (8b):E202-E210. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10119.x

Borghesi M, Ahmed H, Nam R, Schaeffer E, Schiavina R, Taneja S, Weidner W, Loeb S (2017) Complications after systematic, random, and image-guided prostate biopsy. European urology 71 (3):353-365. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016.08.004

Vargas HA, Akin O, Franiel T, Mazaheri Y, Zheng J, Moskowitz C, Udo K, Eastham J, Hricak H (2011) Diffusion-weighted endorectal MR imaging at 3 T for prostate cancer: tumor detection and assessment of aggressiveness. Radiology 259 (3):775-784. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.11102066

Jung SI, Donati OF, Vargas HA, Goldman D, Hricak H, Akin O (2013) Transition zone prostate cancer: incremental value of diffusion-weighted endorectal MR imaging in tumor detection and assessment of aggressiveness. Radiology 269 (2):493-503. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.13130029

Si Y, Liu R-b (2018) Diagnostic performance of Monoexponential DWI versus diffusion kurtosis imaging in prostate Cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. American Journal of Roentgenology 211 (2):358-368. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.17.18934

Rosenkrantz AB, Padhani AR, Chenevert TL, Koh DM, De Keyzer F, Taouli B, Le Bihan D (2015) Body diffusion kurtosis imaging: basic principles, applications, and considerations for clinical practice. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging 42 (5):1190-1202. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.24985

Jensen JH, Helpern JA, Ramani A, Lu H, Kaczynski K (2005) Diffusional kurtosis imaging: the quantification of non-gaussian water diffusion by means of magnetic resonance imaging. Magnetic Resonance in Medicine: An Official Journal of the International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine 53 (6):1432-1440. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/mrm.20508

Van Cauter S, Veraart J, Sijbers J, Peeters RR, Himmelreich U, De Keyzer F, Van Gool SW, Van Calenbergh F, De Vleeschouwer S, Van Hecke W (2012) Gliomas: diffusion kurtosis MR imaging in grading. Radiology 263 (2):492-501. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.12110927

10.

Barrett T, McLean M, Priest AN, Lawrence EM, Patterson AJ, Koo BC, Patterson I, Warren AY, Doble A, Gnanapragasam VJ (2018) Diagnostic evaluation of magnetization transfer and diffusion kurtosis imaging for prostate cancer detection in a re-biopsy population. European radiology 28 (8):3141-3150. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-5169-1

11.

Roethke MC, Kuder TA, Kuru TH, Fenchel M, Hadaschik BA, Laun FB, Schlemmer H-P, Stieltjes B (2015) Evaluation of diffusion kurtosis imaging versus standard diffusion imaging for detection and grading of peripheral zone prostate cancer. Investigative radiology 50 (8):483-489. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1097/RLI.0000000000000155

12.

Toivonen J, Merisaari H, Pesola M, Taimen P, Bostrom PJ, Pahikkala T, Aronen HJ, Jambor I (2015) Mathematical models for diffusion-weighted imaging of prostate cancer using b values up to 2000s/mm2: Correlation with Gleason score and repeatability of region of interest analysis. Magnetic resonance in medicine 74 (4):1116-1124. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/mrm.25482

13.

Wang Q, Li H, Yan X, Wu C-J, Liu X-S, Shi H-B, Zhang Y-D (2015) Histogram analysis of diffusion kurtosis magnetic resonance imaging in differentiation of pathologic Gleason grade of prostate cancer. In: Urologic oncology: seminars and original investigations. vol 8. Elsevier, pp 337. e315-337. e324. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2015.05.005

14.

Rosenkrantz AB, Sigmund EE, Johnson G, Babb JS, Mussi TC, Melamed J, Taneja SS, Lee VS, Jensen JH (2012) Prostate cancer: feasibility and preliminary experience of a diffusional kurtosis model for detection and assessment of aggressiveness of peripheral zone cancer. Radiology 264 (1):126-135. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.12112290

15.

Suo S, Chen X, Wu L, Zhang X, Yao Q, Fan Y, Wang H, Xu J (2014) Non-Gaussian water diffusion kurtosis imaging of prostate cancer. Magnetic resonance imaging 32 (5):421-427. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mri.2014.01.015

16.

Wu C-J, Zhang Y-D, Bao M-L, Li H, Wang X-N, Liu X-S, Shi H-B (2017) Diffusion kurtosis imaging helps to predict upgrading in biopsy-proven prostate Cancer with a Gleason score of 6. American Journal of Roentgenology 209 (5):1081-1087. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.16.17781

17.

Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB, Delahunt B, Srigley JR, Humphrey PA (2016-2020) The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma. The American journal of surgical pathology 40 (2):244-252. https://doi.org/10.1097/PAS.0000000000000530

18.

Tamada T, Prabhu V, Li J, Babb JS, Taneja SS, Rosenkrantz AB (2017) Prostate cancer: diffusion-weighted MR imaging for detection and assessment of aggressiveness - comparison between conventional and kurtosis models. Radiology 284 (1):100-108. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2017162321

19.

Shan Y, Chen X, Liu K, Zeng M, Zhou J (2019) Prostate cancer aggressive prediction: preponderant diagnostic performances of intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) imaging and diffusion kurtosis imaging (DKI) beyond ADC at 3.0 T scanner with gleason score at final pathology. Abdominal Radiology 44 (10):3441-3452. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-019-02075-3

20.

Ding K, Yao Y, Gao Y, Lu X, Chen H, Tang Q, Hua C, Zhou M, Zou X, Yin Q (2019) Diagnostic evaluation of diffusion kurtosis imaging for prostate cancer: Detection in a biopsy population. European journal of radiology 118:138-146. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2019.07.009

21.

Park SY, Jung DC, Oh YT, Cho NH, Choi YD, Rha KH, Hong SJ, Han K (2016) Prostate cancer: PI-RADS version 2 helps preoperatively predict clinically significant cancers. Radiology 280 (1):108-116. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.16151133

22.

Chen S, Yang Y, Peng T, Yu X, Deng H, Guo Z (2020) The prediction value of PI-RADS v2 score in high-grade Prostate Cancer: a multicenter retrospective study. International journal of medical sciences 17 (10):1366-1374. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.7150/ijms.45730

23.

Epstein JI (2010) An update of the Gleason grading system. The Journal of urology 183 (2):433-440. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2009.10.046

24.

Bourne R, Kurniawan N, Cowin G, Sved P, Watson G (2011) 16 T diffusion microimaging of fixed prostate tissue: preliminary findings. Magnetic resonance in medicine 66 (1):244-247. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/mrm.22778

25.

Jia G, Abaza R, Williams JD, Zynger DL, Zhou J, Shah ZK, Patel M, Sammet S, Wei L, Bahnson RR (2011) Amide proton transfer MR imaging of prostate cancer: a preliminary study. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging 33 (3):647-654. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.22480

26.

Takayama Y, Nishie A, Sugimoto M, Togao O, Asayama Y, Ishigami K, Ushijima Y, Okamoto D, Fujita N, Yokomizo A, Keupp J, Honda H (2016) Amide proton transfer (APT) magnetic resonance imaging of prostate cancer: comparison with Gleason scores. Magnetic Resonance Materials in Physics 29 (4):671-679. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s10334-016-0537-4

27.

Jensen JH, Helpern JA (2010) MRI quantification of non-Gaussian water diffusion by kurtosis analysis. NMR in Biomedicine 23 (7):698-710. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/nbm.1518

28.

Sun K, Chen X, Chai W, Fei X, Fu C, Yan X, Zhan Y, Chen K, Shen K, Yan F (2015) Breast cancer: diffusion kurtosis MR imaging - diagnostic accuracy and correlation with clinical-pathologic factors. Radiology 277 (1):46-55. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.15141625

Title: Comparison of diagnostic performance between diffusion kurtosis imaging parameters and mono-exponential ADC for determination of clinically significant cancer in patients with prostate cancer
Authors: Hyungin Park
Seung Ho Kim
Yedaun Lee
Jung Hee Son
Publication date: 01-12-2020
Publisher: Springer US
Keywords: Prostate Cancer
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Prostate Cancer
Prostatectomy
Prostatectomy
Published in: Abdominal Radiology / Issue 12/2020
Print ISSN: 2366-004X
Electronic ISSN: 2366-0058
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-020-02776-0

ACC 2024 Congress Coverage

Heart Failure Video

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Comparison of diagnostic performance between diffusion kurtosis imaging parameters and mono-exponential ADC for determination of clinically significant cancer in patients with prostate cancer

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

ACC 2024 Congress Coverage

Year in Review: Heart failure and cardiomyopathies

Semaglutide benefits people with type 2 diabetes and obesity-related heart failure

Incentivised to exercise

New intervention for STEMI-related cardiogenic shock

» View more highlights on the ACC 2024 congress hub page

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 12/2020

PI-RADS: what is new and how to use it

PI-RADS version 2.1 scoring system is superior in detecting transition zone prostate cancer: a diagnostic study

A radiomics machine learning-based redefining score robustly identifies clinically significant prostate cancer in equivocal PI-RADS score 3 lesions

Prostatic peripheral zone thickness: what is normal on magnetic resonance imaging?

Rectal gas-induced susceptibility artefacts on prostate diffusion-weighted MRI with epi read-out at 3.0 T: does a preparatory micro-enema improve image quality?

Impact of bowel preparation with Fleet’s™ enema on prostate MRI quality

ACC 2024 Congress Coverage

Year in Review: Heart failure and cardiomyopathies

Semaglutide benefits people with type 2 diabetes and obesity-related heart failure

Incentivised to exercise

New intervention for STEMI-related cardiogenic shock

» View more highlights on the ACC 2024 congress hub page