Top

Published in:

01-06-2015 | Urogenital

Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging for prediction of insignificant prostate cancer in potential candidates for active surveillance

Authors: Tae Heon Kim, Jae Yong Jeong, Sin Woo Lee, Chan Kyo Kim, Byung Kwan Park, Hyun Hwan Sung, Hwang Gyun Jeon, Byong Chang Jeong, Seong Il Seo, Hyun Moo Lee, Han Yong Choi, Seong Soo Jeon

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 6/2015

Abstract

Objectives

To investigate whether the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) from diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DW-MRI) could help improve the prediction of insignificant prostate cancer in candidates for active surveillance (AS).

Methods

Enrolled in this retrospective study were 287 AS candidates who underwent DW-MRI before radical prostatectomy. Patients were stratified into two groups; Group A consisted of patients with no visible tumour or a suspected tumour ADC value > 0.830 × 10^-3 mm²/sec and Group B consisted of patients with a suspected tumour ADC value < 0.830 × 10^-3 mm²/sec. We compared pathological outcomes in each group.

Results

Group A had 243 (84.7 %) patients and Group B had 44 (15.3 %) patients. The proportion of organ-confined Gleason ≤ 6 disease and insignificant prostate cancer was significantly higher in Group A than Group B (61.3 % vs. 38.6 %, p = 0.005 and 47.7 % vs. 25.0 %, p = 0.005, respectively). On multivariate analysis, a high ADC value was the independent predictor of organ-confined Gleason ≤ 6 disease and insignificant prostate cancer (odds ratio = 2.43, p = 0.011 and odds ratio = 2.74, p = 0.009, respectively).

Conclusion

Tumour ADC values may be a useful marker for predicting insignificant prostate cancer in candidates for AS.

Key points

• ADC from DW-MRI can help assess prostate cancer aggressiveness in potential AS candidates.

• There was a closed correlation between higher ADC values and insignificant prostate cancer.

• The absence of lesions on DWI/DWI can help select potential AS candidates.

Glass AS, Punnen S, Cooperberg MR (2013) Divorcing diagnosis from treatment: contemporary management of low-risk prostate cancer. Korean J Urol 54:417–425CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

Epstein JI, Walsh PC, Carmichael M, Brendler CB (1994) Pathologic and clinical findings to predict tumor extent of nonpalpable (stage T1c) prostate cancer. JAMA 271:368–374CrossRefPubMed

Klotz L (2010) Active surveillance for prostate cancer: a review. Curr Urol Rep 11:165–171CrossRefPubMed

Epstein JI, Feng Z, Trock BJ, Pierorazio PM (2012) 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 61:1019–1024CrossRefPubMed

Conti SL, Dall’era M, Fradet V, Cowan JE, Simko J, Carroll PR (2009) Pathological outcomes of candidates for active surveillance of prostate cancer. J Urol 181:1628–1633, discussion 1633-1624CrossRefPubMed

Kim TH, Jeon HG, Choo SH et al (2014) Pathological upgrading and upstaging of patients eligible for active surveillance according to currently used protocols. Int J Urol 21:377–381CrossRefPubMed

Klotz L, Zhang L, Lam A, Nam R, Mamedov A, Loblaw A (2010) Clinical results of long-term follow-up of a large, active surveillance cohort with localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 28:126–131CrossRefPubMed

Louie-Johnsun M, Neill M, Treurnicht K, Jarmulowicz M, Eden C (2009) Final outcomes of patients with low-risk prostate cancer suitable for active surveillance but treated surgically. BJU Int 104:1501–1504CrossRefPubMed

van den Bergh RC, Ahmed HU, Bangma CH, Cooperberg MR, Villers A, Parker CC (2014) Novel tools to improve patient selection and monitoring on active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer: a systematic review. Eur Urol 65:1023–1031CrossRefPubMed

10.

Park SY, Kim CK, Park BK, Lee HM, Lee KS (2011) Prediction of biochemical recurrence following radical prostatectomy in men with prostate cancer by diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging: initial results. Eur Radiol 21:1111–1118CrossRefPubMed

11.

Somford DM, Hoeks CM, Hulsbergen-van de Kaa CA et al (2013) Evaluation of diffusion-weighted MR imaging at inclusion in an active surveillance protocol for low-risk prostate cancer. Investig Radiol 48:152–157CrossRef

12.

Hambrock T, Somford DM, Huisman HJ et al (2011) Relationship between apparent diffusion coefficients at 3.0-T MR imaging and Gleason grade in peripheral zone prostate cancer. Radiology 259:453–461CrossRefPubMed

13.

Nagarajan R, Margolis D, Raman S et al (2012) Correlation of Gleason scores with diffusion-weighted imaging findings of prostate cancer. Adv Urol 2012:374805CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

14.

van As NJ, de Souza NM, Riches SF et al (2009) A study of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in men with untreated localised prostate cancer on active surveillance. Eur Urol 56:981–987CrossRefPubMed

15.

Morgan VA, Riches SF, Thomas K et al (2011) Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging for monitoring prostate cancer progression in patients managed by active surveillance. Br J Radiol 84:31–37CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

16.

van den Bergh RC, Roemeling S, Roobol MJ, Roobol W, Schroder FH, Bangma CH (2007) Prospective validation of active surveillance in prostate cancer: the PRIAS study. Eur Urol 52:1560–1563CrossRefPubMed

17.

Noguchi M, Stamey TA, McNeal JE, Yemoto CE (2000) Assessment of morphometric measurements of prostate carcinoma volume. Cancer 89:1056–1064CrossRefPubMed

18.

Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174CrossRefPubMed

19.

Ganz PA, Barry JM, Burke W et al (2012) National Institutes of Health State-of-the-Science Conference: role of active surveillance in the management of men with localized prostate cancer. Ann Intern Med 156:591–595CrossRefPubMed

20.

Tosoian JJ, Trock BJ, Landis P et al (2011) Active surveillance program for prostate cancer: an update of the Johns Hopkins experience. J Clin Oncol 29:2185–2190CrossRefPubMed

21.

Soloway MS, Soloway CT, Eldefrawy A, Acosta K, Kava B, Manoharan M (2010) Careful selection and close monitoring of low-risk prostate cancer patients on active surveillance minimizes the need for treatment. Eur Urol 58:831–835CrossRefPubMed

22.

Motamedinia P, RiChard JL, McKiernan JM, DeCastro GJ, Benson MC (2012) Role of immediate confirmatory prostate biopsy to ensure accurate eligibility for active surveillance. Urology 80:1070–1074CrossRefPubMed

23.

deSouza NM, Riches SF, Vanas NJ et al (2008) Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging: a potential non-invasive marker of tumour aggressiveness in localized prostate cancer. Clin Radiol 63:774–782CrossRefPubMed

24.

Shigemura K, Yamanaka N, Yamashita M (2013) Can diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging predict a high Gleason score of prostate cancer? Korean J Urol 54:234–238CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

25.

Doo KW, Sung DJ, Park BJ et al (2012) Detectability of low and intermediate or high risk prostate cancer with combined T2-weighted and diffusion-weighted MRI. Eur Radiol 22:1812–1819CrossRefPubMed

26.

Guzzo TJ, Resnick MJ, Canter DJ et al (2012) Endorectal T2-weighted MRI does not differentiate between favorable and adverse pathologic features in men with prostate cancer who would qualify for active surveillance. Urol Oncol 30:301–305CrossRefPubMed

27.

Mullins JK, Bonekamp D, Landis P et al (2013) Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging findings in men with low-risk prostate cancer followed using active surveillance. BJU Int 111:1037–1045CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

28.

Park BH, Jeon HG, Choo SH et al (2014) Role of multiparametric 3.0-Tesla magnetic resonance imaging in patients with prostate cancer eligible for active surveillance. BJU Int 113:864–870CrossRefPubMed

29.

Rosenkrantz AB, Prabhu V, Sigmund EE, Babb JS, Deng FM, Taneja SS (2013) Utility of diffusional kurtosis imaging as a marker of adverse pathologic outcomes among prostate cancer active surveillance candidates undergoing radical prostatectomy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 201:840–846CrossRefPubMed

Title: Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging for prediction of insignificant prostate cancer in potential candidates for active surveillance
Authors: Tae Heon Kim
Jae Yong Jeong
Sin Woo Lee
Chan Kyo Kim
Byung Kwan Park
Hyun Hwan Sung
Hwang Gyun Jeon
Byong Chang Jeong
Seong Il Seo
Hyun Moo Lee
Han Yong Choi
Seong Soo Jeon
Publication date: 01-06-2015
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: European Radiology / Issue 6/2015
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-014-3566-2

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging for prediction of insignificant prostate cancer in potential candidates for active surveillance

Abstract

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Key points

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Key points

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 6/2015

Intravoxel water diffusion heterogeneity MR imaging of nasopharyngeal carcinoma using stretched exponential diffusion model

Assessment of image quality in soft tissue and bone visualization tasks for a dedicated extremity cone-beam CT system

Comparison of four software packages for CT lung volumetry in healthy individuals

Preoperative cardiac computed tomography for demonstration of congenital cardiac septal defect in adults

DCE-MRI of the breast in a stand-alone setting outside a complementary strategy - results of the TK-study

Prognostic potential of initial CT changes for progression-free survival in gefitinib-treated patients with advanced adenocarcinoma of the lung: a preliminary analysis