Share：
Share this content in WeChat
X
[Chinese][PDF]4393
• Clinical Article •
Application of MRI apparent diffusion coefficient in identifying prognostic risk stratification of prostate cancer
YI Nuo  WANG Yajing  WANG Peng  LIU Hao  ZHOU Wenzhen  YIN Xindao  WANG Liwei 

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. DOI:10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2022.12.018.


[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.
[Keywords] prostate cancer；benign prostatic hyperplasia；magnetic resonance imaging；biparametric magnetic resonance imaging；apparent diffusion coefficient；risk stratification

YI Nuo   WANG Yajing   WANG Peng   LIU Hao   ZHOU Wenzhen   YIN Xindao   WANG Liwei*  

Department of Radiology, Nanjing First Hospital, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, 210006, China

Wang LW, E-mail: ab723y@163.com

Conflicts of interest   None.

Received  2022-07-07
Accepted  2022-11-29
DOI: 10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2022.12.018
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. DOI:10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2022.12.018.

[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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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.

PREV Feasibility study of three-dimensional amide proton transfer imaging in differentiating prostate cancer with and without bone metastasis
NEXT Quantitative assessment of arterial wall by magnetic resonance 3D DANTE CUBE sequence: An experimental study compared with pathology
  


LINK


Tel & Fax: +8610-67113815    E-mail: editor@cjmri.cn