分享:
分享到微信朋友圈
X
临床研究
磁共振表观扩散系数鉴别前列腺癌预后相关风险分层的应用研究
一诺 王雅菁 王鹏 刘浩 周文珍 殷信道 王利伟

Cite this article as: Yi N, Wang YJ, Wang P, et al. Application of MRI apparent diffusion coefficient in identifying prognostic risk stratification of prostate cancer[J]. Chin J Magn Reson Imaging, 2022, 13(12): 104-110.本文引用格式:一诺, 王雅菁, 王鹏, 等. 磁共振表观扩散系数鉴别前列腺癌预后相关风险分层的应用研究[J]. 磁共振成像, 2022, 13(12): 104-110. DOI:10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2022.12.018.


[摘要] 目的 评估双参数磁共振成像(biparametric magnetic resonance imaging, bpMRI)的表观扩散系数(apparent diffusion coefficients, ADC)对前列腺癌(prostate cancer, PCa)进行预后相关的国际泌尿病理学会(International Society of Urological Pathology, ISUP)分级分组(grading group, GG)的能力,并且对最小表观扩散系数(minimum apparent diffusion coefficients, ADCmin)及平均表观扩散系数(mean apparent diffusion coefficients, ADCmean)的诊断效能进行比较。材料与方法 回顾性分析91名患者的bpMRI图像和数据,计算主要病灶的ADCmin及ADCmean,绘制受试者工作特征(receiver operating characteristic, ROC)曲线确定ADC诊断界值并计算ROC曲线下面积(area under the curve, AUC),分析ADC对PCa的诊断效能。比较良恶性病变的ADC差异,依据风险分层比较低危与中高危病变的ADC差异。采用Spearman分析对ADC和ISUP GG之间的相关性进行分析。结果 91例患者中48例为PCa(52.7%),43例为良性病变(47.3%)。PCa组的ADCmin及ADCmean的中位数均明显低于良性病变组,良性病变与恶性病变差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。中高危PCa(intermediate- and high-risk PCa, ihPCa)的ADCmin及ADCmean中位数显著低于良性组和低危组,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。以0.49×10-3 mm2/s(b=2000)为诊断界值,ADCmin诊断ihPCa的特异度、阳性预测值(positive predictive value, PPV)、Youden指数和AUC分别为88%、84%、68%、0.87。而以0.64×10-3 mm2/s(b=2000)为诊断界值,ADCmean诊断ihPCa的特异度、PPV、Youden指数和AUC分别为85%、78%、59%、0.83。ADCmin及ADCmean值的大小与ISUP GG数值呈负性相关(ρ=-0.661,P<0.01)。结论 随着ADC值降低,PCa的预后风险增高;bpMRI的ADC参数在诊断ihPCa时有较高的特异度和PPV,且ADCmin的诊断性能优于ADCmean。bpMRI的ADC参数可用于无创评估PCa预后相关风险分层,为PCa患者的风险预测和个体化治疗提供有效工具,并且建议影像医师在诊断中可以更偏重对ADCmin的使用。
[Abstract] Objective To assess the diagnostic performance of the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) of biparametric magnetic resonance imaging (bpMRI) in the identification of prostate cancer (PCa), performing the International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grading group (GG) for PCa and comparing the diagnostic ability of minimum apparent diffusion coefficient (ADCmin) and mean apparent diffusion coefficient (ADCmean).Materials and Methods The bpMRI images and data of 91 patients were retrospectively analyzed, the ADCmin and ADCmean of the main lesions were calculated, and the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was drawn to determine the diagnostic cut-off of ADC. The area under the curve (AUC) was calculated to analyze the diagnostic performance of ADC for PCa. The differences of ADC between benign and malignant lesions were compared, and the differences between low-risk, intermediate-and high-risk lesions were compared according to risk stratification. Correlations between ADC and ISUP GG were analyzed using Spearman analysis.Results Of the 91 patients, 48 had PCa (52.7%), and 43 had benign lesions (47.3%). The medians of ADCmin and ADCmean in PCa group were significantly lower than those in benign lesions group, and there was significant difference between benign lesions and malignant lesions (P<0.05). The median ADCmin and ADCmean of intermediate and high-risk PCa (ihPCa) were significantly lower than those of benign and low-risk groups, and the differences were significant (P<0.05). Taking 0.49×10-3 mm2/s (b=2000) as the diagnostic cut-off value, the specificity, positive predictive value, Youden index, and AUC of ADCmin in diagnosing ihPCa were 88%, 84%, 68%, and 0.87, respectively. Taking 0.64×10-3 mm2/s (b=2000) as the diagnostic cut-off value, the specificity, positive predictive value, Youden index, and AUC of ADCmean for diagnosing ihPCa were 85%, 78%, 59%, 0.83, respectively. The values of ADCmin and ADCmean were negatively correlated with ISUP GG values (ρ=-0.661, P<0.01).Conclusions As the ADC value decreases, the prognosis risk of PCa increases. The ADC parameters of bpMRI have relatively high specificity and PPV in the diagnosis of ihPCa and the diagnostic performance of ADCmin is better than that of ADCmean. The ADC parameters of bpMRI can be used to non-invasively assess the risk stratification related to the prognosis of PCa, providing an effective tool for risk prediction and individualized treatment of PCa patients, and suggesting that radiologists can focus more on ADCmin in diagnosis.
[关键词] 前列腺癌;前列腺增生;磁共振成像;双参数磁共振成像;表观扩散系数;风险分层
[Keywords] prostate cancer;benign prostatic hyperplasia;magnetic resonance imaging;biparametric magnetic resonance imaging;apparent diffusion coefficient;risk stratification

一诺    王雅菁    王鹏    刘浩    周文珍    殷信道    王利伟 *  

南京医科大学附属南京医院(南京市第一医院)医学影像科,南京 210006

王利伟,E-mail:ab723y@163.com

作者利益冲突声明:全体作者均声明无利益冲突。


收稿日期:2022-07-07
接受日期:2022-11-29
中图分类号:R445.2  R737.25 
文献标识码:A
DOI: 10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2022.12.018
本文引用格式:一诺, 王雅菁, 王鹏, 等. 磁共振表观扩散系数鉴别前列腺癌预后相关风险分层的应用研究[J]. 磁共振成像, 2022, 13(12): 104-110. DOI:10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2022.12.018.

       前列腺癌(prostate cancer, PCa)是全球范围发生在男性中最常见的恶性肿瘤之一,占我国癌症的第六位[1]。根据美国SEER(The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results)数据库2004~2010年的数据显示,局限性PCa的五年生存率为100%,而转移性PCa仅为28%[2]。对PCa患者进行早期诊断和治疗,是改善患者预后和生存质量的关键。近年来无创的影像学检查越来越多地被运用于前列腺检查中。目前的指南建议在活检前使用多参数磁共振成像(multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging, mpMRI),mpMRI包括T2WI、扩散加权成像(diffusion weighted imaging, DWI)和动态对比增强(dynamic contrast-enhanced, DCE)成像。为了标准化mpMRI的图像采集技术、读片和报告程序,前列腺成像和报告数据系统2.1版(Prostate Imaging and Reporting Data System v2.1, PI-RADS v2.1)于2019年由美国放射学院、欧洲泌尿生殖放射学会等共同发布[3]

       近年来越来越多的研究提出使用双参数磁共振成像(biparametric magnetic resonance imaging, bpMRI)对PCa进行检测。bpMRI仅仅使用mpMRI中的两个参数——T2WI和带有表观扩散系数(apparent diffusion coefficients, ADC)图的DWI序列,DCE序列不再是必需的选项[4]。PI-RADS v2.1强调了bpMRI的优势并鼓励研究者们探索其针对不同研究对象的应用价值[5, 6]。但目前的研究[7, 8]大多是在证实使用PI-RADS v2.1检测PCa时,bpMRI的诊断效能与mpMRI相当,并没有关于bpMRI中的ADC序列诊断PCa预后相关风险分层的研究。PI-RADS是通过相对主观的评分来判断患癌的可能性大小,不能提示预后的好坏,这是PI-RADS评分的不足之处,而ADC定量研究通过测量较客观的实际数值有望弥补这个缺陷。本研究在探讨bpMRI的ADC技术对PCa的诊断效能以及对PCa进行风险分层的应用价值的基础上,进一步对最小表观扩散系数(minimum apparent diffusion coefficients, ADCmin)及平均表观扩散系数(mean apparent diffusion coefficients, ADCmean)的诊断效能进行比较,为影像以及临床医师对PCa的诊断提供参考。

1 材料与方法

1.1 临床资料

       回顾性分析2020年1月至2022年6月在本院接受MRI平扫检查的675例PCa患者病例。患者进行检查的原因和症状包括:排尿困难、血尿、前列腺特异性抗原(prostate specific antigen, PSA)升高及健康体检等。纳入标准:(1)首次进行前列腺肿瘤筛查;(2)患者接受MRI检查,影像学资料完整,图像清晰;(3)患者在MRI检查后,均接受穿刺活检或根治切除术获得病理结果;(4)MRI与穿刺活检或根治切除术间隔时间在30天内。排除标准:(1)PCa术后复发患者;(2)已诊断为PCa并在MRI检查前进行了相关治疗(如内分泌治疗、放化疗等);(3)没有明确病理结果。当患者同时存在穿刺活检和根治切除标本的病理结果时,采用根治切除的病理结果。本研究遵守《赫尔辛基宣言》,并经本院伦理委员会批准,免除受试者知情同意,批准文号:2019-664。所有纳入研究病例均经手术或穿刺活检病理证实为PCa。

1.2 MRI检查技术

       MRI扫描采用Magnetom Prisma 3.0 T(SIEMENS,德国)MR扫描仪及腹部相控阵线圈,线圈中心约位于耻骨联合水平。患者采用仰卧位,无需进行腹部固定。检查序列包括横断位T1WI、T2WI、压脂T2WI、DWI,以及冠状位T2WI。T1WI序列扫描参数:TR 562 ms,TE 10 ms;T2WI序列扫描参数:TR 2800 ms,TE 105 ms;压脂T2WI序列扫描参数:TR 3040 ms,TE 94 ms;DWI序列扫描参数:TR 4000 ms,TE 59 ms,b=2000 s/mm2。采集时间共约20 min。

1.3 图像分析

       采集完成后将图像传到后处理工作站进行分析。采用盲法阅片,在未知晓临床和病理诊断结果的情况下由2名具有10年以上诊断经验的影像科主任医师对图像进行分析,每个患者分析1个病灶,当有多个病灶时将T2WI信号最低且体积最大的一个主要病灶纳入研究。在后处理工作站重建ADC图,每个患者测量一个主要病灶,主要病灶的定义是T2WI信号最低、恶性可能性最大的病灶(图1)。测量ADC值时感兴趣区的直径不小于5 mm,以2个医师测量结果的均值作为分析依据。当2名医师意见不统一时,由第3位具有15年以上诊断经验的主任医师进行分析,得出最终结果。

图1  男,73岁,进行性排尿困难6年余,加重1个月(PSA:45.89 ng/mL)。T2WI显示中央带体积增大、信号不均匀,选取右侧信号最低、恶性可能性最高的结节(1A)。DWI、ADC可见右侧中央带结节样高、低信号改变(1B、1C)。PSA:前列腺特异性抗原;DWI:扩散加权成像。
Fig. 1  Male, 73 years old, progressive dysuria for more than 6 years, aggravated for 1 month (PSA: 45.89 ng/mL). T2WI shows that the volume of the central gland is increased and the signal is uneven. Select the nodule with the lowest signal and the highest malignant possibility on the right (1A). DWI reveals the nodular-like high signal area in the right side of the central gland (1B). The ADC imaging shows the round low signal in the right central gland (1C). PSA: prostate specific antigen; DWI: diffusion weighted imaging.

1.4 病理检查

       将病灶标本进行固定、脱水、浸蜡、切片,然后苏木精-伊红染色,在光学显微镜下进行观察(×40)。穿刺活检及根治切除术标本由具有10年以上诊断经验的病理科主任医师诊断并进行格里森评分(Gleason score, GS)和国际泌尿病理学会(International Society of Urological Pathology, ISUP)分级分组(grade group, GG)。良性病变(benign lesions, BL)包括正常前列腺组织、前列腺增生(benign prostatic hyperplasia, BPH)和前列腺炎。恶性病变结果分为五组:GG1(GS 6)、GG2(GS 3+4=7)、GG3(GS 4+3=7)、GG4(GS 8)和GG5(GS 9~10)。GG1病变被定义为低危PCa,GG 2~3病变被定义为中危PCa,GG 4~5病变被定义为高危PCa(high-risk Pca, hPCa)[5,9]。GG 2~5是中高危PCa(intermediate- and high-risk PCa,ihPCa)。BL和低风险PCa均为非ihPCa(non-ihPCa,nihPCa)。

1.5 统计学处理

       对每个患者评估诊断性能并与组织病理学结果进行比较。对前列腺病灶(无论病灶所处位置)进行分析,以及分别对位于外周带和中央带的病灶进行分析。计量数据进行正态性检验,符合正态分布时采用平均值±标准差(x¯±s)表示,两组间比较采用独立样本t检验;不符合正态分布时进行非参数检验,以中位数(上四分位数,下四分位数)[MP25P75)]表示,两组间采用Mann-Whitney U检验进行比较,多组间的组间比较采用Kruskal-Wallis H检验。采用SPSS(version 26.0, IBM, Armonk, New York)以及GraphPad Prism version 9.0(GraphPad Software, Inc., La Jolla, CA, USA)统计软件处理数据。绘制MRI的受试者工作特征(receiver operating characteristic, ROC)曲线,确定ADC诊断界值并计算曲线下面积(area under the curve, AUC),分析ADC对PCa的诊断效能,计算敏感度、特异度、Youden指数、阳性预测值(positive predictive value, PPV)、阴性预测值(negative predictive value, NPV)及准确度。比较良恶性病变的ADC差异,依据风险分层比较低危与中高危病变的ADC差异。采用Spearman分析对ADC和ISUP GG评分之间的相关性进行分析。以P<0.05为差异有统计学意义。

2 结果

2.1 病理诊断结果

       最终共有91例符合标准的患者纳入研究,年龄为50~90(70.0±8.2)岁。其中48例为PCa(52.7%),年龄57~90(73.2±7.4)岁,主要病灶位于外周带的共38例(79.2%),位于中央带的共10例(20.8%);43例为良性病变(47.3%),年龄50~87(68.2±8.4)岁。其中BPH 39例(伴有前列腺炎20例),前列腺炎4例。两组年龄比较,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),PCa患者的年龄稍高于良性前列腺病变患者。

2.2 前列腺疾病影像表现

       PCa病灶一般边界模糊、形态欠规则,在T2WI表现为外周带或中央带的低信号灶,DWI图像上信号升高,ADC图信号减低(图2)。BPH中增生结节位于中央带,边界较清晰,在T2WI表现为类圆形等、高或混杂信号,DWI显示等信号改变,ADC图显示等、稍低或稍高信号,BPH的外周带受压变薄。急慢性前列腺炎患者的外周带和中央带呈弥漫性或散在分布的T2WI低信号改变,DWI表现为等或稍高信号,ADC图呈等或稍低信号,信号改变类似PCa(图3)。BPH与前列腺炎共存时前列腺的信号表现复杂多变,是被误诊为恶性病变的主要原因之一。

图2  男,83岁,体检发现PSA升高(27.80 ng/mL)。T2WI显示左侧外周带膨大,信号明显减低(2A);左侧外周带的DWI信号明显升高(2B);ADC图可见左侧外周带信号明显减低(2C);病理结果显示为中危前列腺癌,Gleason评分4+3=7(2D)。
图3  男,50岁,体检发现PSA升高(10.45 ng/mL)。T2WI显示两侧外周带信号不均匀减低,右侧较明显(3A);DWI显示两侧外周带信号不均匀升高,右侧更明显(3B);ADC图可见右侧外周带信号减低(3C);病理证实为外周带前列腺炎(3D)。PSA:前列腺特异性抗原;DWI:扩散加权成像;ADC:表观扩散系数。
Fig. 2  Male, 83 years old, with elevated PSA level (27.80 ng/mL) in physical examination. T2WI shows that the volume of left peripheral zone is enlarged and the signal is significantly reduced (2A). The DWI signal in the left peripheral zone is significantly elevated (2B). The ADC imaging shows that the signal of the left peripheral band is significantly reduced (2C). The pathological diagnosis is intermediate prostate cancer. Gleason score is 4+3=7 (2D).
Fig. 3  Male, 50 years old, with elevated PSA level (10.45 ng/mL) in physical examination. T2WI shows that the signal of peripheral zone on both sides decreased unevenly and the right side is more obvious (3A). DWI shows that the signal of peripheral zone on both sides increased unevenly and the right side is more obvious (3B). ADC imaging shows that signal of the right peripheral zone is reduced (3C). The pathological diagnosis is prostatitis in peripheral zone (3D). PSA: prostate specific antigen; DWI: diffusion weighted imaging; ADC: apparent diffusion coefficients.

2.3 bpMRI ADC诊断PCa风险分层的结果

       PCa组的ADCmin及ADCmean的中位数均明显低于良性病变组,良性病变与恶性病变的差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。ihPCa的ADCmin及ADCmean中位数显著低于良性组和低危组,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。不同组别的ADC值分布及中位数差异情况见表1图4图5

       绘制ROC后计算出PCa、ihPCa和hPCa的诊断结果,详见表2表3。以0.49×10-3 mm2/s(b=2000)为诊断界值,ADCmin诊断ihPCa的特异度、PPV、Youden指数和AUC分别为88%、84%、68%、0.87。而以0.64×10-3 mm2/s(b=2000)为诊断界值,ADCmean诊断ihPCa的特异度、PPV、Youden指数和AUC分别为85%、78%、59%、0.83。

       当bpMRI用于诊断PCa及ihPCa时,ADCmin的敏感度、PPV、NPV、准确度、Youden指数、AUC均高于ADCmean,ADCmin的特异度等于ADCmean。ADCmin对于PCa及ihPCa的诊断性能优于ADCmean(图6)。

图4  不同ISUP GG的ADCmin分布图。
图5  不同ISUP GG的ADCmean分布图。
图6  ADCmean与ADCmin诊断ihPCa的受试者工作特性曲线。
图7  ADCmin与ISUP GG的相关性分析。ISUP GG为国际泌尿病理学会分级分组(0:良性病变;1:GS=6;2:GS 3+4=7;3:GS 4+3=7;4:GS=8;5:GS=9-10);ADCmin:最小表观扩散系数;ADCmean:平均表观扩散系数;ihPCa:中高危前列腺癌。
Fig. 4  Distribution of ADCmin in different ISUP GG.
Fig. 5  Distribution of ADCmean in different ISUP GG groups.
Fig. 6  Receiver operating characteristic curves of ADCmean and ADCmin for the diagnosis of ihPCa.
Fig. 7  Correlation analysis between ADCmin and ISUP GG. ISUP is International Society of Urological Pathology; GG is grading group (0: benign lesion; 1: GS=6; 2: GS 3+4=7; 3: GS 4+3=7; 4: GS=8; 5: GS=9-10); ADCmin: minimum apparent diffusion coefficients; ADCmean: mean apparent diffusion coefficients; ihPCa: intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer.
表1  ADCmin与ADCmean的中位数分布
Tab. 1  Distribution of median of ADCmin and ADCmean
表2  ADCmin诊断PCa的结果
Tab. 2  The results of diagnosing PCa with ADCmin
表3  ADCmean诊断PCa的结果
Tab. 3  The results of diagnosing PCa with ADCmean

2.4 bpMRI ADC诊断前列腺不同区域PCa的结果

       前列腺不同分区的ADC值分布及中位数差异情况见表4。外周带和中央带良性区的ADCmin及ADCmean均大于恶性区,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。中央带良性区的ADCmin及ADCmean均大于外周带良性区,中央带恶性区的ADCmin及ADCmean均小于外周带恶性区,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。以0.58×10-3 mm2/s(b=2000)为诊断界值,ADCmin诊断外周带PCa的特异度、PPV、AUC分别为82%、94%、0.78。以0.67×10-3 mm2/s(b=2000)为诊断界值,ADCmean诊断外周带PCa的特异度、PPV、AUC分别为82%、93%、0.75。以0.48×10-3 mm2/s(b=2000)为诊断界值,ADCmin诊断中央带PCa的特异度、PPV、AUC分别为100%、100%、0.96。以0.61×10-3 mm2/s(b=2000)为诊断界值,ADCmean诊断外周带PCa的特异度、PPV、AUC分别为100%、100%、0.93。由此可见,ADCmin对于外周带和中央带PCa的诊断性能也同样优于ADCmean。

表4  前列腺不同分区的ADCmin与ADCmean的中位数分布
Tab. 4  Distribution of median of ADCmin and ADCmean in different regions of prostate

2.5 ADC与GS分值相关性分析

       ADCmin值的大小与ISUP GG数值呈负性相关(Spearman ρ=-0.681,P<0.01);ADCmean值的大小与GG数值同样呈负性相关(ρ=-0.661,P<0.01)。随着ADC值降低,GG数值升高,恶性可能性越高,PCa的预后越差(图7)。

3 讨论

       本研究探讨了bpMRI的ADC序列诊断PCa预后相关风险分层的价值,同时将ADCmin以及ADCmean对于PCa的诊断效能进行了比较。结果显示,ihPCa的ADCmin及ADCmean中位数显著低于良性组和低危组,且ADCmin对于PCa及ihPCa的诊断性能优于ADCmean。研究显示中央带良性区的ADCmin及ADCmean大于恶性区,可以为鉴别前列腺中央带的增生结节和PCa结节提供一定的参考价值。

       PCa的病理学评分和GG与其预后相关,评分越高者预后越差。低危PCa的预后相对较好,甚至有一部分是惰性癌,患者可以带瘤生存,因此治疗时可以采取相对保守的治疗方法,比如主动检测或药物治疗,可以避免不必要的手术及尿失禁等并发症,从而提高患者的生存质量。ihPCa需要采取更激进的治疗方法,以延长患者生存时间为主要目的。在体检中或治疗前无创性地及早鉴别出低危与ihPCa具有重要的临床意义。

3.1 bpMRI诊断PCa的价值

       在PI-RADS v2.1中,对发生在前列腺外周带的疾病推荐以DWI序列为主进行评分。虽然DCE在对模糊和较小病灶的诊断中价值较高,但很多前列腺外周带的慢性炎症病灶在DCE序列上的强化表现会导致误诊或者漏诊的发生[6]。周飞等[10]的研究发现DWI序列能有效反映PCa与BPH的病理差异,现有文献已证明把T2WI与DWI结合的bpMRI可显著提高检测PCa的敏感性和特异性[11],其效能已被证明不逊于mpMRI[7,12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18]。也有研究[19, 20, 21]提出将血清前列腺特异性抗原(prostate specific antigen, PSA)及其相关指标(如PSA密度)与bpMRI相结合,可以达到与mpMRI相近的诊断效能[22, 23]。bpMRI无需使用对比剂,减少了对比剂相关过敏反应的风险,减少了每次扫描的时间,同时降低了患者进行MRI检查的经济成本。

3.2 ADC值预测PCa风险分层的价值

       ADC值是PCa诊断与分级中有意义的参考指标[24, 25, 26, 27],可能与水分子在前列腺中扩散受限的程度越高意味着PCa的肿瘤细胞生长越密实有关。本研究中ADCmin和ADCmean诊断ihPCa均有较高的特异度和PPV,结果显示ADCmin及ADCmean值的大小与ISUP GG数值呈负性相关,ADC值越低前列腺病灶恶性可能性越高,PCa预后更差的风险越大。这与赵晓静等[28]以及王明皓等[29]的研究结果类似,他们的研究结果显示进行MRI的PCa患者的ADC与Gleason评分之间存在负相关。deSouza等[30]在研究中比较了低风险和中高风险PCa患者的病灶ADC值,同样证明了两组之间存在显著性差异。

3.3 MRI预测PCa风险分层的思考与建议

       目前应用MRI研究前列腺疾病的主要关注点仍然是病灶的恶性可能性大小,我们认为MRI不仅能判断患者是否患有癌症,而且能够无创性地预测癌症患者的预后风险。本研究在评估bpMRI对PCa诊断效能的基础上,进一步探究了ADC对预后相关的危险分层的鉴别价值。结果表明,bpMRI的ADC值不但能够区别前列腺的良恶性病变,而且对ihPCa的诊断具有较高的特异度和PPV;在鉴别诊断PCa和ihPCa时,ADCmin的诊断性能优于ADCmean,因此建议影像医师在诊断中可以更偏重对ADCmin的使用。同时我们还建议影像医师在应用PI-RADS 2.1诊断PCa时能够有更深入的思考,尝试对PCa患者的预后进行预测,除了进行PI-RADS诊断外,可以在诊断报告中体现出癌性病灶的危险程度,比如在结论中提示低危PCa可能或ihPCa可能。当然这仍需要更多的研究对此进行深入探讨,以进一步评估MRI预测风险分层的价值。

3.4 本研究的局限性

       本研究存在一些局限性。第一,部分患者最终病理结果来源于穿刺活检,因此部分小病灶的病理评分结果与ADC值之间可能存在位置偏移性误差;第二,ADC值的测量会受所选病灶的大小影响,因此存在一定的误差。

       综上所述,随着ADC值降低,前列腺病灶的恶性可能性越高,PCa预后更差的风险越大。bpMRI的ADC参数在诊断ihPCa时有较高的特异度和PPV,且ADCmin的诊断性能优于ADCmean。bpMRI的ADC参数可用于无创评估PCa预后相关风险分层,为PCa患者的风险预测和个体化治疗提供有效工具,并且建议影像医师在诊断中可以更偏重对ADCmin的使用。

[1]
Chen WQ, Zheng RS, Baade PD, et al. Cancer statistics in China, 2015[J]. CA A Cancer J Clin, 2016, 66(2): 115-132. DOI: 10.3322/caac.21338.
[2]
叶定伟, 朱耀. 中国前列腺癌的流行病学概述和启示[J]. 中华外科杂志, 2015(4): 249-252. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0529-5815.2015.04.003.
Ye DW, Zhu Y. Epidemiology of prostate cancer in China: an overview and clinical implication[J]. Chin J Surg, 2015(4): 249-252. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0529-5815.2015.04.003.
[3]
Park BK. Re: Baris turkbey, andrewB. rosenkrantz, masoom A. haider, et al. prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2.1: 2019 update of prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2. eur urol 2019;76: 340-51[J/OL]. Eur Urol, 2019, 76(3): e78 [2022-06-15]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2019.05.038. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.05.038.
[4]
Turkbey B, Rosenkrantz AB, Haider MA, et al. Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2.1: 2019 Update of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2[J]. Eur Urol, 2019, 76(3): 340-351. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.02.033.
[5]
Mottet N, van den Bergh RCN, Briers E, et al. EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer-2020 update. part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent[J]. Eur Urol, 2021, 79(2): 243-262. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.09.042.
[6]
张跃跃, 赵文露, 魏超刚, 等. 双参数MRI对前列腺癌检出的应用价值[J]. 中华放射学杂志, 2019(2): 109-114. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1005-1201.2019.02.006.
Zhang YY, Zhao WL, Wei CG, et al. The value of biparametric MRI in the detection of prostate cancer[J]. Chin J Radiol, 2019(2): 109-114. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1005-1201.2019.02.006.
[7]
Tamada T, Kido A, Yamamoto A, et al. Comparison of biparametric and multiparametric MRI for clinically significant prostate cancer detection with PI-RADS version 2.1[J]. J Magn Reson Imaging, 2021, 53(1): 283-291. DOI: 10.1002/jmri.27283.
[8]
钟宇, 田芳, 邹明宇, 等. 基于PI-RADS v2.1不同参数磁共振成像对前列腺癌诊断效能的比较[J]. 中国医科大学学报, 2020, 49(10): 915-920. DOI: 10.12007/j.issn.0258-4646.2020.10.010.
Zhong Y, Tian F, Zou MY, et al. Comparison of the diagnostic efficacy of magnetic resonance imaging with different parameters for prostate cancer based on PI-RADS v2.1[J]. J China Med Univ, 2020, 49(10): 915-920. DOI: 10.12007/j.issn.0258-4646.2020.10.010.
[9]
Simsek DH, Sanli Y, Engin MN, et al. Detection of metastases in newly diagnosed prostate cancer by using 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT and its relationship with modified D'Amico risk classification[J]. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging, 2021, 48(5): 1639-1649. DOI: 10.1007/s00259-020-04995-5.
[10]
周飞, 王国超, 曹跃. MRI弥散加权成像在前列腺增生和前列腺癌诊断鉴别中的应用[J]. 中国CT和MRI杂志, 2020, 18(9): 149-151. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-5131.2020.09.045.
Zhou F, Wang GC, Cao Y. Application of MRI diffusion-weighted imaging in the differential diagnosis of benign prostatic hyperplasia and prostatic cancer[J]. Chin J CT MRI, 2020, 18(9): 149-151. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-5131.2020.09.045.
[11]
谢显文, 何俊兴, 陈景艺. 磁共振扩散加权成像结合T2加权成像在前列腺癌诊断中的应用价值[J]. 实用医技杂志, 2021, 28(11): 1312-1314. DOI: 10.19522/j.cnki.1671-5098.2021.11.013.
Xie XW, He JX, Chen JY. The application value of diffusion weighted imaging combined with T2 weighted imaging in the diagnosis of prostate cancer[J]. J Pract Med Tech, 2021, 28(11): 1312-1314. DOI: 10.19522/j.cnki.1671-5098.2021.11.013.
[12]
Tan CH, Wang JH, Kundra V. Diffusion weighted imaging in prostate cancer[J]. Eur Radiol, 2011, 21(3): 593-603. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-010-1960-y.
[13]
Turkbey B, Shah VP, Pang YX, et al. Is apparent diffusion coefficient associated with clinical risk scores for prostate cancers that are visible on 3-T MR images?[J]. Radiology, 2011, 258(2): 488-495. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.10100667.
[14]
姬健智, 张倩, 曹亮, 等. 多参数和双参数磁共振评估前列腺癌的现状及展望[J]. 磁共振成像, 2021, 12(6): 118-120. DOI: 10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2021.06.025.
Ji JZ, Zhang Q, Cao L, et al. Current status and prospect of biparametric and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of prostate cancer[J]. Chin J Magn Reson Imaging, 2021, 12(6): 118-120. DOI: 10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2021.06.025.
[15]
Scialpi M, D'Andrea A, Martorana E, et al. Biparametric MRI of the prostate[J]. Turk J Urol, 2017, 43(4): 401-409. DOI: 10.5152/tud.2017.06978.
[16]
Becerra MF, et al. Performance of multiparametric MRI of the prostate in biopsy Naïve men: a Meta-analysis of prospective studies[J]. Urology, 2020, 146: 189-195. DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2020.06.102.
[17]
Bass EJ, Pantovic A, Connor M, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of biparametric prostate MRI for prostate cancer in men at risk[J]. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis, 2021, 24(3): 596-611. DOI: 10.1038/s41391-020-00298-w.
[18]
韩思圆, 李春媚, 刘明, 等. 双参数磁共振成像在前列腺癌检出方面的应用: 基于前列腺癌根治术病理大切片为对照的研究[J]. 磁共振成像, 2021, 12(5): 30-34. DOI: 10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2021.05.007.
Han SY, Li CM, Liu M, et al. Application of biparametric magnetic resonance imaging in the detection of prostate cancer: a contrastive study based on whole mount section after radical prostatectomy[J]. Chin J Magn Reson Imaging, 2021, 12(5): 30-34. DOI: 10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2021.05.007.
[19]
梁震, 朱军, 康家旗, 等. 双参数磁共振PI-RADS联合PSA相关指标在首次前列腺穿刺活检中的诊断价值[J]. 中华泌尿外科杂志, 2019(10): 768-773. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1000-6702.2019.10.010.
Liang Z, Zhu J, Kang JQ, et al. Diagnostic value of biparameter magnetic resonance imaging of PI-RADS and PSA related markers in first prostate biopsy[J]. Chin J Urol, 2019(10): 768-773. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1000-6702.2019.10.010.
[20]
Stavrinides V, et al. False positive multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging phenotypes in the biopsy-naïve prostate: are they distinct from significant cancer-associated lesions? lessons from PROMIS[J]. Eur Urol, 2021, 79(1): 20-29. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.09.043.
[21]
Han C, Liu S, Qin XB, et al. MRI combined with PSA density in detecting clinically significant prostate cancer in patients with PSA serum levels of 4∼10 ng/mL: Biparametric versus multiparametric MRI[J]. Diagn Interv Imaging, 2020, 101(4): 235-244. DOI: 10.1016/j.diii.2020.01.014.
[22]
Porter KK, King A, Galgano SJ, et al. Financial implications of biparametric prostate MRI[J]. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis, 2020, 23(1): 88-93. DOI: 10.1038/s41391-019-0158-x.
[23]
Lee SJ, Oh YT, Jung DC, et al. Combined analysis of biparametric MRI and prostate-specific antigen density: role in the prebiopsy diagnosis of gleason score 7 or greater prostate cancer[J]. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2018, 211(3): W166-W172. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.17.19253.
[24]
方春, 孙延豹, 王立章, 等. 表观扩散系数值在中央腺区前列腺癌诊断及Gleason分级中的价值[J]. 实用放射学杂志, 2019, 35(8): 1282-1285. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-1671.2019.08.020.
Fang C, Sun YB, Wang LZ, et al. The value of ADC value in diagnosis and Gleason grading of prostate cancer in central gland[J]. J Pract Radiol, 2019, 35(8): 1282-1285. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-1671.2019.08.020.
[25]
Surov A, Meyer HJ, Wienke A. Correlations between apparent diffusion coefficient and gleason score in prostate cancer: a systematic review[J]. Eur Urol Oncol, 2020, 3(4): 489-497. DOI: 10.1016/j.euo.2018.12.006.
[26]
Wu X, Reinikainen P, Vanhanen A, et al. Correlation between apparent diffusion coefficient value on diffusion-weighted MR imaging and Gleason score in prostate cancer[J]. Diagn Interv Imaging, 2017, 98(1): 63-71. DOI: 10.1016/j.diii.2016.08.009.
[27]
Manetta R, Palumbo P, Gianneramo C, et al. Correlation between ADC values and Gleason score in evaluation of prostate cancer: multicentre experience and review of the literature[J]. Gland Surg, 2019, 8(Suppl 3): S216-S222. DOI: 10.21037/gs.2019.05.02.
[28]
赵晓静, 一诺, 王利伟, 等. 双参数MRI诊断前列腺癌的价值与假阳性原因分析[J]. 生物医学工程与临床, 2021, 25(3): 342-346. DOI: 10.13339/j.cnki.sglc.20210423.005.
Zhao XJ, Yi N, Wang LW, et al. Value of biparametric MRI in diagnosis of prostate cancer and false positive analysis[J]. Biomed Eng Clin Med, 2021, 25(3): 342-346. DOI: 10.13339/j.cnki.sglc.20210423.005.
[29]
王明皓, 崔文, 刘园园, 等. 前列腺癌患者病灶ADC值及DCE-MRI成像参数与病理Gleason评分相关性分析[J]. 中国CT和MRI杂志, 2021, 19(11): 157-159. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-5131.2021.11.050.
Wang MH, Cui W, Liu YY, et al. Correlation between DCE-MRI imaging parameters and ADC value and pathological gleason score in patients with prostate cancer[J]. Chin J CT MRI, 2021, 19(11): 157-159. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-5131.2021.11.050.
[30]
de Souza NM, Riches SF, Vanas NJ, et al. Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging: a potential non-invasive marker of tumour aggressiveness in localized prostate cancer[J]. Clin Radiol, 2008, 63(7): 774-782. DOI: 10.1016/j.crad.2008.02.001.

上一篇 三维酰胺质子转移成像鉴别前列腺癌伴骨转移与不伴骨转移的可行性研究
下一篇 磁共振3D DANTE CUBE序列对动脉管壁的定量评估:与病理比较的实验研究
  
诚聘英才 | 广告合作 | 免责声明 | 版权声明
联系电话:010-67113815
京ICP备19028836号-2