Skip to main content
Top
Published in: World Journal of Urology 4/2020

01-04-2020 | Prostate Cancer | Original Article

Effects of the addition of quantitative apparent diffusion coefficient data on the diagnostic performance of the PI-RADS v2 scoring system to detect clinically significant prostate cancer

Authors: Marcia Oliveira Moraes, Diego H. H. Roman, Josenel Copetti, Francisco de S. Santos, Alexandre Agra, Jorge A. P. Noronha, Gustavo Carvalhal, Eurico J. Dornelles Neto, Matheus Zanon, Matteo Baldisserotto, Bruno Hochhegger

Published in: World Journal of Urology | Issue 4/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate the impact of the addition of quantitative apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) data into the diagnostic performance of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADSv2) scoring system to predict clinically significant prostate cancer (CSPCa).

Methods

We retrospectively included 91 consecutive patients who underwent prostate multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mp-MRI) and histopathological evaluation. Mp-MRI images were reported by the PI-RADSv2 scoring system and patients were divided into groups considering the likelihood of CSPCa. ADC value and ratio were obtained. Findings were correlated with histopathological data.

Results

CSPCa was found in 41.8% of cases (n = 38). PI-RADSv2 score 3–5 yielded a sensitivity of 97.4% (95% confidence intervals 86.5–99.5), a specificity of 50.9% (37.9–63.9), and AUC of 0.74 (0.67–0.81) to predict CSPCa. ADC value < 750 µm2/s and an ADC ratio < 0.62 were the most accurate thresholds for differentiation of CSPCa, with AUC of 0.81 and 0.76, respectively. Combined PI-RADSv2 score 3–5 and ADC value < 750 µm2/s yielded a specificity of 84.9 (72.9–92.2), sensitivity of 70.3 (54.2–82.5), and AUC of 0.77 (0.68–0.86). Combined PI-RADSv2 score 3–5 and ADC ratio < 0.62 yielded a specificity of 86.5 (74.7–93.3), sensitivity of was 64.9 (48.8–78.2), and AUC of 0.75 (0.66–0.84).

Conclusion

Quantitative ADC data might not be beneficial to be used routinely in mp-MR imaging as criteria to detect clinically significant lesions due to the reduced sensitivity. Instead, when prostate lesions present a PI-RADSv2 score ≥ 3, additional quantitative ADC criteria can be helpful to increase the PI-RADS score specificity.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Quon JS, Moosavi B, Khanna M, Flood TA, Lim CS, Schieda N (2015) False positive and false negative diagnoses of prostate cancer at multi-parametric prostate MRI in active surveillance. Insights Imaging 6(4):449–463PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Quon JS, Moosavi B, Khanna M, Flood TA, Lim CS, Schieda N (2015) False positive and false negative diagnoses of prostate cancer at multi-parametric prostate MRI in active surveillance. Insights Imaging 6(4):449–463PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
2.
go back to reference Stewart RW, Lizama S, Peairs K, Sateia HF, Choi Y (2017) Screening for prostate cancer. Semin Oncol 44(1):47–56PubMedCrossRef Stewart RW, Lizama S, Peairs K, Sateia HF, Choi Y (2017) Screening for prostate cancer. Semin Oncol 44(1):47–56PubMedCrossRef
3.
go back to reference Purysko AS, Rosenkrantz AB, Barentsz JO, Weinreb JC, Macura KJ (2016) PI-RADS version 2: a pictorial update. Radiographics 36(5):1354–1372PubMedCrossRef Purysko AS, Rosenkrantz AB, Barentsz JO, Weinreb JC, Macura KJ (2016) PI-RADS version 2: a pictorial update. Radiographics 36(5):1354–1372PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference Fütterer JJ, Briganti A, De Visschere P, Emberton M, Giannarini G, Kirkham A et al (2015) Can clinically significant prostate cancer be detected with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging? A systematic review of the literature. Eur Urol 68(6):1045–1053PubMedCrossRef Fütterer JJ, Briganti A, De Visschere P, Emberton M, Giannarini G, Kirkham A et al (2015) Can clinically significant prostate cancer be detected with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging? A systematic review of the literature. Eur Urol 68(6):1045–1053PubMedCrossRef
5.
go back to reference Kim CK, Park BK, Kim B (2010) Diffusion-weighted MRI at 3 T for the evaluation of prostate cancer. Am J Roentgenol 194(6):1461–1469CrossRef Kim CK, Park BK, Kim B (2010) Diffusion-weighted MRI at 3 T for the evaluation of prostate cancer. Am J Roentgenol 194(6):1461–1469CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Vargas HA, Akin O, Franiel T, Mazaheri Y, Zheng J, Moskowitz C et al (2011) Diffusion-weighted endorectal MR imaging at 3 T for prostate cancer: tumor detection and assessment of aggressiveness. Radiology 259(3):775–784PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Vargas HA, Akin O, Franiel T, Mazaheri Y, Zheng J, Moskowitz C et al (2011) Diffusion-weighted endorectal MR imaging at 3 T for prostate cancer: tumor detection and assessment of aggressiveness. Radiology 259(3):775–784PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Thörmer G, Otto J, Reiss-Zimmermann M, Seiwerts M, Moche M, Garnov N et al (2012) Diagnostic value of ADC in patients with prostate cancer: influence of the choice of b values. Eur Radiol 22(8):1820–1828PubMedCrossRef Thörmer G, Otto J, Reiss-Zimmermann M, Seiwerts M, Moche M, Garnov N et al (2012) Diagnostic value of ADC in patients with prostate cancer: influence of the choice of b values. Eur Radiol 22(8):1820–1828PubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Peng Y, Jiang Y, Yang C, Brown JB, Antic T, Sethi I et al (2013) Quantitative analysis of multiparametric prostate MR images: differentiation between prostate cancer and normal tissue and correlation with Gleason score—a computer-aided diagnosis development study. Radiology 267(3):787–796PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Peng Y, Jiang Y, Yang C, Brown JB, Antic T, Sethi I et al (2013) Quantitative analysis of multiparametric prostate MR images: differentiation between prostate cancer and normal tissue and correlation with Gleason score—a computer-aided diagnosis development study. Radiology 267(3):787–796PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
9.
go back to reference Hambrock T, Somford DM, Huisman HJ, van Oort IM, Witjes JA, Hulsbergen-van de Kaa CA et al (2011) Relationship between apparent diffusion coefficients at 3.0-T MR imaging and Gleason grade in peripheral zone prostate cancer. Radiology 259(2):453–461PubMedCrossRef Hambrock T, Somford DM, Huisman HJ, van Oort IM, Witjes JA, Hulsbergen-van de Kaa CA et al (2011) Relationship between apparent diffusion coefficients at 3.0-T MR imaging and Gleason grade in peripheral zone prostate cancer. Radiology 259(2):453–461PubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference Ma T, Yang S, Jing H, Cong L, Cao Z, Liu Z et al (2018) Apparent diffusion coefficients in prostate cancer: correlation with molecular markers Ki-67, HIF-1α and VEGF. NMR Biomed 31(3):e3884CrossRef Ma T, Yang S, Jing H, Cong L, Cao Z, Liu Z et al (2018) Apparent diffusion coefficients in prostate cancer: correlation with molecular markers Ki-67, HIF-1α and VEGF. NMR Biomed 31(3):e3884CrossRef
11.
go back to reference 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(5):1111–1118PubMedCrossRef 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(5):1111–1118PubMedCrossRef
12.
go back to reference Giles SL, Morgan VA, Riches SF, Thomas K, Parker C, deSouza NM (2011) Apparent diffusion coefficient as a predictive biomarker of prostate cancer progression: value of fast and slow diffusion components. Am J Roentgenol 196(3):586–591CrossRef Giles SL, Morgan VA, Riches SF, Thomas K, Parker C, deSouza NM (2011) Apparent diffusion coefficient as a predictive biomarker of prostate cancer progression: value of fast and slow diffusion components. Am J Roentgenol 196(3):586–591CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Haffner J, Potiron E, Bouyé S, Puech P, Leroy X, Lemaitre L et al (2009) Peripheral zone prostate cancers: location and intraprostatic patterns of spread at histopathology. Prostate 69(3):276–282PubMedCrossRef Haffner J, Potiron E, Bouyé S, Puech P, Leroy X, Lemaitre L et al (2009) Peripheral zone prostate cancers: location and intraprostatic patterns of spread at histopathology. Prostate 69(3):276–282PubMedCrossRef
14.
go back to reference Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, Cornud F, Haider MA, Macura KJ et al (2016) PI-RADS prostate imaging–reporting and data system: 2015, version 2. Eur Urol 69(1):16–40PubMedCrossRef Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, Cornud F, Haider MA, Macura KJ et al (2016) PI-RADS prostate imaging–reporting and data system: 2015, version 2. Eur Urol 69(1):16–40PubMedCrossRef
15.
go back to reference Rosenkrantz AB, Ginocchio LA, Cornfeld D, Froemming AT, Gupta RT, Turkbey B et al (2016) Interobserver reproducibility of the PI-RADS version 2 lexicon: a multicenter study of six experienced prostate radiologists. Radiology 280(3):793–804PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Rosenkrantz AB, Ginocchio LA, Cornfeld D, Froemming AT, Gupta RT, Turkbey B et al (2016) Interobserver reproducibility of the PI-RADS version 2 lexicon: a multicenter study of six experienced prostate radiologists. Radiology 280(3):793–804PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
16.
go back to reference Greer MD, Brown AM, Shih JH, Summers RM, Marko J, Law YM et al (2017) Accuracy and agreement of PIRADSv2 for prostate cancer mpMRI: a multireader study. J Magn Reson Imaging 45(2):579–585PubMedCrossRef Greer MD, Brown AM, Shih JH, Summers RM, Marko J, Law YM et al (2017) Accuracy and agreement of PIRADSv2 for prostate cancer mpMRI: a multireader study. J Magn Reson Imaging 45(2):579–585PubMedCrossRef
17.
go back to reference Rosenkrantz AB, Oto A, Turkbey B, Westphalen AC (2016) Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS), version 2: a critical look. Am J Roentgenol 206(6):1179–1183CrossRef Rosenkrantz AB, Oto A, Turkbey B, Westphalen AC (2016) Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS), version 2: a critical look. Am J Roentgenol 206(6):1179–1183CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Woo S, Kim SY, Lee J, Kim SH, Cho JY (2016) PI-RADS version 2 for prediction of pathological downgrading after radical prostatectomy: a preliminary study in patients with biopsy-proven Gleason Score 7 (3+ 4) prostate cancer. Eur Radiol 26(10):3580–3587PubMedCrossRef Woo S, Kim SY, Lee J, Kim SH, Cho JY (2016) PI-RADS version 2 for prediction of pathological downgrading after radical prostatectomy: a preliminary study in patients with biopsy-proven Gleason Score 7 (3+ 4) prostate cancer. Eur Radiol 26(10):3580–3587PubMedCrossRef
19.
go back to reference Mehralivand S, Bednarova S, Shih JH, Mertan FV, Gaur S, Merino MJ et al (2017) Prospective evaluation of PI-RADS™ version 2 using the international society of urological pathology prostate cancer grade group system. J Urol 198(3):583–590PubMedCrossRef Mehralivand S, Bednarova S, Shih JH, Mertan FV, Gaur S, Merino MJ et al (2017) Prospective evaluation of PI-RADS™ version 2 using the international society of urological pathology prostate cancer grade group system. J Urol 198(3):583–590PubMedCrossRef
20.
go back to reference Rosenkrantz AB, Babb JS, Taneja SS, Ream JM (2016) Proposed adjustments to PI-RADS version 2 decision rules: impact on prostate cancer detection. Radiology 283(1):119–129PubMedCrossRef Rosenkrantz AB, Babb JS, Taneja SS, Ream JM (2016) Proposed adjustments to PI-RADS version 2 decision rules: impact on prostate cancer detection. Radiology 283(1):119–129PubMedCrossRef
21.
go back to reference Mertan FV, Berman R, Szajek K, Pinto PA, Choyke PL, Turkbey B (2016) Evaluating the role of mpMRI in prostate cancer assessment. Expert Rev Med Devices 13(2):129–141PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Mertan FV, Berman R, Szajek K, Pinto PA, Choyke PL, Turkbey B (2016) Evaluating the role of mpMRI in prostate cancer assessment. Expert Rev Med Devices 13(2):129–141PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
22.
go back to reference Gaur S, Harmon S, Rosenblum L, Greer MD, Mehralivand S, Coskun M et al (2018) Can apparent diffusion coefficient values assist PI-RADS Version 2 DWI scoring? A correlation study using the PI-RADSv2 and international society of urological pathology systems. Am J Roentgenol 211:W1–W9CrossRef Gaur S, Harmon S, Rosenblum L, Greer MD, Mehralivand S, Coskun M et al (2018) Can apparent diffusion coefficient values assist PI-RADS Version 2 DWI scoring? A correlation study using the PI-RADSv2 and international society of urological pathology systems. Am J Roentgenol 211:W1–W9CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Park SY, Shin SJ, Jung DC, Cho NH, Choi YD, Rha KH, Hong SJ, Oh YT (2017) PI-RADS version 2: quantitative analysis aids reliable interpretation of diffusion-weighted imaging for prostate cancer. Eur Radiol 27(7):2776–2783PubMedCrossRef Park SY, Shin SJ, Jung DC, Cho NH, Choi YD, Rha KH, Hong SJ, Oh YT (2017) PI-RADS version 2: quantitative analysis aids reliable interpretation of diffusion-weighted imaging for prostate cancer. Eur Radiol 27(7):2776–2783PubMedCrossRef
24.
go back to reference Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB, Delahunt B, Srigley JR, Humphrey PA (2016) The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: definition of grading patterns and proposal for a new grading system. Am J Surg Pathol 40(2):244–252PubMed Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB, Delahunt B, Srigley JR, Humphrey PA (2016) The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: definition of grading patterns and proposal for a new grading system. Am J Surg Pathol 40(2):244–252PubMed
25.
go back to reference Carroll PR, Parsons JK, Andriole G, Bahnson RR, Castle EP, Catalona WJ, Dahl DM, Davis JW, Epstein JI, Etzioni RB, Farrington T (2016) NCCN guidelines insights: prostate cancer early detection, version 2.2016. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 14(5):509–519PubMedCrossRef Carroll PR, Parsons JK, Andriole G, Bahnson RR, Castle EP, Catalona WJ, Dahl DM, Davis JW, Epstein JI, Etzioni RB, Farrington T (2016) NCCN guidelines insights: prostate cancer early detection, version 2.2016. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 14(5):509–519PubMedCrossRef
26.
go back to reference Heidenreich A, Bastian PJ, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Joniau S, van der Kwast T et al (2014) EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent-update 2013. Eur Urol 65(1):124–137PubMedCrossRef Heidenreich A, Bastian PJ, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Joniau S, van der Kwast T et al (2014) EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent-update 2013. Eur Urol 65(1):124–137PubMedCrossRef
27.
go back to reference Tosoian JJ, Trock BJ, Landis P, Feng Z, Epstein JI, Partin AW et al (2011) Active surveillance program for prostate cancer: an update of the Johns Hopkins experience. J Clin Oncol 29(16):2185–2190PubMedCrossRef Tosoian JJ, Trock BJ, Landis P, Feng Z, Epstein JI, Partin AW et al (2011) Active surveillance program for prostate cancer: an update of the Johns Hopkins experience. J Clin Oncol 29(16):2185–2190PubMedCrossRef
28.
go back to reference Ahmed HU, Bosaily AE, Brown LC, Gabe R, Kaplan R, Parmar MK, Collaco-Moraes Y, Ward K, Hindley RG, Freeman A, Kirkham AP (2017) Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet 389(10071):815–822PubMedCrossRef Ahmed HU, Bosaily AE, Brown LC, Gabe R, Kaplan R, Parmar MK, Collaco-Moraes Y, Ward K, Hindley RG, Freeman A, Kirkham AP (2017) Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet 389(10071):815–822PubMedCrossRef
29.
go back to reference Baldisserotto M, Neto EJ, Carvalhal G, de Toledo AF, de Almeida CM, Cairoli CE et al (2016) Validation of PI-RADS vol 2 for prostate cancer diagnosis with MRI at 3T using an external phased-array coil. J Magn Reson Imaging 44(5):1354–1359PubMedCrossRef Baldisserotto M, Neto EJ, Carvalhal G, de Toledo AF, de Almeida CM, Cairoli CE et al (2016) Validation of PI-RADS vol 2 for prostate cancer diagnosis with MRI at 3T using an external phased-array coil. J Magn Reson Imaging 44(5):1354–1359PubMedCrossRef
30.
go back to reference Zhao C, Gao G, Fang D, Li F, Yang X, Wang H et al (2016) The efficiency of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) using PI-RADS Version 2 in the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer. Clin Imaging 40(5):885–888PubMedCrossRef Zhao C, Gao G, Fang D, Li F, Yang X, Wang H et al (2016) The efficiency of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) using PI-RADS Version 2 in the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer. Clin Imaging 40(5):885–888PubMedCrossRef
31.
go back to reference Henderson DR, de Souza NM, Thomas K, Riches SF, Morgan VA, Sohaib SA et al (2016) Nine-year follow-up for a study of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in a prospective prostate cancer active surveillance cohort. Eur Urol 69(6):1028–1033PubMedCrossRef Henderson DR, de Souza NM, Thomas K, Riches SF, Morgan VA, Sohaib SA et al (2016) Nine-year follow-up for a study of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in a prospective prostate cancer active surveillance cohort. Eur Urol 69(6):1028–1033PubMedCrossRef
32.
go back to reference Jordan EJ, Fiske C, Zagoria R, Westphalen AC (2018) PI-RADS v2 and ADC values: is there room for improvement? Abdom Radiol (NY) 43(11):3109–3116CrossRef Jordan EJ, Fiske C, Zagoria R, Westphalen AC (2018) PI-RADS v2 and ADC values: is there room for improvement? Abdom Radiol (NY) 43(11):3109–3116CrossRef
33.
go back to reference Lebovici A, Sfrangeu SA, Feier D, Caraiani C, Lucan C, Suciu M et al (2014) Evaluation of the normal-to-diseased apparent diffusion coefficient ratio as an indicator of prostate cancer aggressiveness. BMC Med Imaging 14(1):15PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Lebovici A, Sfrangeu SA, Feier D, Caraiani C, Lucan C, Suciu M et al (2014) Evaluation of the normal-to-diseased apparent diffusion coefficient ratio as an indicator of prostate cancer aggressiveness. BMC Med Imaging 14(1):15PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
34.
go back to reference Barrett T, Priest AN, Lawrence EM, Goldman DA, Warren AY, Gnanapragasam VJ et al (2015) Ratio of tumor to normal prostate tissue apparent diffusion coefficient as a method for quantifying DWI of the prostate. Am J Roentgenol 205(6):W585–W593CrossRef Barrett T, Priest AN, Lawrence EM, Goldman DA, Warren AY, Gnanapragasam VJ et al (2015) Ratio of tumor to normal prostate tissue apparent diffusion coefficient as a method for quantifying DWI of the prostate. Am J Roentgenol 205(6):W585–W593CrossRef
35.
go back to reference Litjens GJ, Hambrock T, Hulsbergen-van de Kaa C, Barentsz JO, Huisman HJ (2012) Interpatient variation in normal peripheral zone apparent diffusion coefficient: effect on the prediction of prostate cancer aggressiveness. Radiology 265(1):260–266PubMedCrossRef Litjens GJ, Hambrock T, Hulsbergen-van de Kaa C, Barentsz JO, Huisman HJ (2012) Interpatient variation in normal peripheral zone apparent diffusion coefficient: effect on the prediction of prostate cancer aggressiveness. Radiology 265(1):260–266PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Effects of the addition of quantitative apparent diffusion coefficient data on the diagnostic performance of the PI-RADS v2 scoring system to detect clinically significant prostate cancer
Authors
Marcia Oliveira Moraes
Diego H. H. Roman
Josenel Copetti
Francisco de S. Santos
Alexandre Agra
Jorge A. P. Noronha
Gustavo Carvalhal
Eurico J. Dornelles Neto
Matheus Zanon
Matteo Baldisserotto
Bruno Hochhegger
Publication date
01-04-2020
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
World Journal of Urology / Issue 4/2020
Print ISSN: 0724-4983
Electronic ISSN: 1433-8726
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-019-02827-2

Other articles of this Issue 4/2020

World Journal of Urology 4/2020 Go to the issue