Top

Published in:

01-10-2016 | Original Article

Apparent diffusion coefficient value is a strong predictor of unsuspected aggressiveness of prostate cancer before radical prostatectomy

Authors: Raphaele Renard Penna, Geraldine Cancel-Tassin, Eva Comperat, Pierre Mozer, Priscilla Léon, Justine Varinot, Morgan Roupret, Marc-Olivier Bitker, Olivier Lucidarme, Olivier Cussenot

Published in: World Journal of Urology | Issue 10/2016

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate the use of multiparametric MRI (mp MRI) parameters in order to predict prostate cancer aggressiveness as defined by pathological Gleason score or molecular markers in a cohort of patients defined with a Gleason score of 6 at biopsy.

Methods

Sixty-seven men treated by radical prostatectomy (RP) for a low grade (Gleason 6) on biopsy and mp MRI before biopsy were selected. The cycle cell proliferation (CCP) score assessed by the Prolaris test and Ki-67/PTEN expression assessed by immunohistochemistry were quantified on the RP specimens.

Results

49.25 % of the cancers were undergraded on biopsy compared to the RP specimens. Apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) < 0.80 × 10⁻³ mm²/s (P value 0.003), Likert score >4 (P value 0.003) and PSA density >0.15 ng/ml/cc (P value 0.035) were significantly associated with a higher RP Gleason score. Regarding molecular markers of aggressiveness, ADC < 0.80 × 10⁻³ mm²/s and Likert score >4 were also significantly associated with a positive staining for Ki-67 (P value 0.039 and 0.01, respectively). No association was found between any analyzed MRI or clinical parameter and the CCP score.

Conclusion

Decreasing ADC value is a stronger indicator of aggressive prostate cancer as defined by molecular markers or postsurgical histology than biopsy characteristics.

Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Ervik M, Dikshit R et al (2012) GLOBOCAN v1.0, cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: IARC cancer base no. 11 [Internet]. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2013. http://globocan.iarc.fr. Accessed on 11/01/2016

Partin AW, Kattan MW, Subong EN et al (1997) Combination of prostate-specific antigen, clinical stage, and Gleason score to predict pathological stage of localized prostate cancer. A multi-institutional update. JAMA 277:1445–1451CrossRefPubMed

Sved PD, Gomez P, Manoharan M, Kim SS, Soloway MS (2004) Limitations of biopsy Gleason grade: implications for counseling patients with biopsy Gleason score 6 prostate cancer. J Urol 172:98–102CrossRefPubMed

Cuzick J, Berney DM, Fisher G et al (2012) Prognostic value of a cell cycle progression signature for prostate cancer death in a conservatively managed needle biopsy cohort. Br J Cancer 106:1095–1099. doi:10.1038/bjc.2012.39 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Verma R, Gupta V, Singh J et al (2015) Significance of p53 and ki-67 expression in prostate cancer. Urol Ann 7:488–493. doi:10.4103/0974-7796.158507 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Cuzick J, Yang ZH, Fisher G et al (2013) Prognostic value of PTEN loss in men with conservatively managed localised prostate cancer. Br J Cancer 108:2582–2589. doi:10.1038/bjc.2013.248 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

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 259:453–461. doi:10.1148/radiol.11091409 CrossRefPubMed

Tamada T, Sone T, Jo Y et al (2008) 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 28:720–726. doi:10.1002/jmri.21503 CrossRefPubMed

Itou Y, Nakanishi K, Narumi Y, Nishizawa Y, Tsukuma H (2011) 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 33:167–172. doi:10.1002/jmri.22317 CrossRefPubMed

10.

Verma S, Rajesh A, Morales H et al (2011) Assessment of aggressiveness of prostate cancer: correlation of apparent diffusion coefficient with histologic grade after radical prostatectomy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 196:374–381. doi:10.2214/AJR.10.4441 CrossRefPubMed

11.

Renard-Penna R, Cancel-Tassin G, Comperat E et al (2015) Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging predicts postoperative pathology but misses aggressive prostate cancers as assessed by cell cycle progression score. J Urol 194:1617–1623. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2015.06.107 CrossRefPubMed

12.

Puech P, Rouviere O, Renard-Penna R et al (2013) Prostate cancer diagnosis: multiparametric MR-targeted biopsy with cognitive and transrectal US–MR fusion guidance versus systematic biopsy-prospective multicenter study. Radiology 268:461–469. doi:10.1148/radiol.13121501 CrossRefPubMed

13.

Renard-Penna R, Roupret M, Comperat E et al (2013) Accuracy of high resolution (1.5 tesla) pelvic phased array magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in staging prostate cancer in candidates for radical prostatectomy: results from a prospective study. Urol Oncol 31:448–454. doi:10.1016/j.urolonc.2011.02.017 CrossRefPubMed

14.

Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R et al (2012) ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 22:746–757. doi:10.1007/s00330-011-2377-y CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

15.

Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL et al (2016) PI-RADS prostate imaging—reporting and data system: 2015, version 2. Eur Urol 69:16–40. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2015.08.052 CrossRefPubMed

16.

Schuetz A, Deleage C, Sereti I et al (2014) Initiation of ART during early acute HIV infection preserves mucosal Th17 function and reverses HIV-related immune activation. PLoS Pathog 10:e1004543. doi:10.1371/journal.ppat.1004543 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

17.

18.

Meiers I, Waters DJ, Bostwick DG (2007) Preoperative prediction of multifocal prostate cancer and application of focal therapy: review 2007. Urology 70:3–8. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2007.06.1129 CrossRefPubMed

19.

Greene KL, Cowan JE, Cooperberg MR et al (2005) Who is the average patient presenting with prostate cancer? Urology 66:76–82CrossRefPubMed

20.

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 104:1501–1504. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2009.08597.x CrossRefPubMed

21.

Itatani R, Namimoto T, Kajihara H et al (2014) Triage of low-risk prostate cancer patients with PSA levels 10 ng/ml or less: comparison of apparent diffusion coefficient value and transrectal ultrasound-guided target biopsy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 202:1051–1057. doi:10.2214/AJR.13.11602 CrossRefPubMed

22.

De Cobelli F, Ravelli S, Esposito A et al (2015) Apparent diffusion coefficient value and ratio as noninvasive potential biomarkers to predict prostate cancer grading: comparison with prostate biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimen. AJR Am J Roentgenol 204:550–557. doi:10.2214/AJR.14.13146 CrossRefPubMed

23.

Kobus T, Vos PC, Hambrock T et al (2012) Prostate cancer aggressiveness: in vivo assessment of MR spectroscopy and diffusion-weighted imaging at 3 T. Radiology 265:457–467. doi:10.1148/radiol.12111744 CrossRefPubMed

24.

Bittencourt LK, Barentsz JO, de Miranda LC, Gasparetto EL (2012) Prostate MRI: diffusion-weighted imaging at 1.5T correlates better with prostatectomy Gleason Grades than TRUS-guided biopsies in peripheral zone tumours. Eur Radiol 22:468–475. doi:10.1007/s00330-011-2269-1 CrossRefPubMed

25.

Vargas HA, Akin O, Franiel T et al (2011) Diffusion-weighted endorectal MR imaging at 3 T for prostate cancer: tumor detection and assessment of aggressiveness. Radiology 259:775–784. doi:10.1148/radiol.11102066 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

26.

Renard-Penna R, Mozer P, Cornud F et al (2015) Prostate imaging reporting and data system and Likert scoring system: multiparametric MR imaging validation study to screen patients for initial biopsy. Radiology 275:458–468. doi:10.1148/radiol.14140184 CrossRefPubMed

27.

Harada T, Abe T, Kato F et al (2015) Five-point Likert scaling on MRI predicts clinically significant prostate carcinoma. BMC Urol 15:9. doi:10.1186/s12894-015-0087-5 CrossRef

28.

Benson MC, Whang IS, Pantuck A et al (1992) Prostate specific antigen density: a means of distinguishing benign prostatic hypertrophy and prostate cancer. J Urol 147:815–816PubMed

29.

Revelos K, Petraki C, Gregorakis A et al (2005) p27(kip1) and Ki-67 (MIB1) immunohistochemical expression in radical prostatectomy specimens of patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. In Vivo 19:911–920PubMed

30.

Zhang J, Jing H, Han X, Huang Z, Cao Z, Liu Q (2013) Diffusion-weighted imaging of prostate cancer on 3T MR: relationship between apparent diffusion coefficient values and Ki-67 expression. Acad Radiol 20:1535–1541. doi:10.1016/j.acra.2013.09.007 CrossRefPubMed

31.

Cho E, Chung DJ, Yeo DM et al (2015) Optimal cut-off value of perfusion parameters for diagnosing prostate cancer and for assessing aggressiveness associated with Gleason score. Clin Imaging 39:834–840. doi:10.1016/j.clinimag.2015.04.020 CrossRefPubMed

32.

Vignati A, Mazzetti S, Giannini V et al (2015) Texture features on T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging: new potential biomarkers for prostate cancer aggressiveness. Phys Med Biol 60:2685–2701. doi:10.1088/0031-9155/60/7/2685 CrossRefPubMed

Title: Apparent diffusion coefficient value is a strong predictor of unsuspected aggressiveness of prostate cancer before radical prostatectomy
Authors: Raphaele Renard Penna
Geraldine Cancel-Tassin
Eva Comperat
Pierre Mozer
Priscilla Léon
Justine Varinot
Morgan Roupret
Marc-Olivier Bitker
Olivier Lucidarme
Olivier Cussenot
Publication date: 01-10-2016
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: World Journal of Urology / Issue 10/2016
Print ISSN: 0724-4983
Electronic ISSN: 1433-8726
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-016-1789-3

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Apparent diffusion coefficient value is a strong predictor of unsuspected aggressiveness of prostate cancer before radical prostatectomy

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

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 10/2016

Enucleation is enucleation is enucleation is enucleation

Intermediate-term cancer control outcomes in prostate cancer patients treated with robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a multi-institutional analysis

Robotic radical cystectomy: intracorporeal versus extracorporeal versus orthotopic neobladder—Which is better?

Clinical impact of prostate biopsy undergrading in an academic and community setting

The T-plasty: a modified YV-plasty for highly recurrent bladder neck contracture after transurethral surgery for benign hyperplasia of the prostate: clinical outcome and patient satisfaction

A model for assuring clamping success during laparoscopic partial nephrectomy with segmental renal artery clamping