Apparent Diffusion Coefficient (ADC) Ratio Versus Conventional ADC for Detecting Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer With 3-T MRI.
retrospective_cohort · Level III
Where this comes from
- Record sourced from PubMed, PMID 31216201.
- Also identified by DOI 10.2214/AJR.19.21365.
- No licence information is recorded for this record.
- Because redistribution is not established, this page shows the abstract only. Follow the links below for the full text.
Abstract
<b>OBJECTIVE.</b> The purpose of this study is to evaluate the performance of the apparent diffusion coefficient ratio (ADC<sub>ratio</sub>; the ADC of the suspected prostate cancer [PCa] focus on MRI divided by the ADC in a noncancerous reference area) with that of conventional ADC for detection of high-grade PCa (Gleason score [GS] ≥ 3 + 4) versus low-grade PCa (GS = 3 + 3) with whole-mount (WM) histopathologic analysis used as a reference. <b>MATERIALS AND METHODS.</b> The cohort of this retrospective study included 218 men with 240 unilateral PCa lesions assessed by both 3-T multiparametric MRI and whole-mount histopathologic analysis. ROIs were placed on individual lesions verified by WM histopathologic analysis, to calculate the mean ADC (ADC<sub>tumor_mean</sub>) and lowest ADC within each lesion (ADC<sub>tumor_min</sub>), and within non-tumor-containing regions of the same tumor zone but on the contralateral side (ADC<sub>benign</sub>), to calculate the background ADC. The ADC<sub>ratio_mean</sub> (the ADC<sub>tumor_mean</sub> divided by the ADC<sub>benign</sub>) was calculated. The performance of individual ADC<sub>tumor</sub> and ADC<sub>ratio_mean</sub> values in discriminating PCa with a GS of 3 + 3 from PCa with a GS of 3 + 4 or greater was assessed using the AUC value. <b>RESULTS.</b> The ADC<sub>ratio_mean</sub> had a higher AUC value for discriminating PCa lesions with a GS of 3 + 3 from those with a GS of 3 + 4 or greater (the AUC value increased from 0.70 using the ADC<sub>tumor_mean</sub> and 0.67 using the ADC<sub>tumor_min</sub> [the minimum ADC of the PCa lesion] to 0.80 for the ADC<sub>ratio_mean</sub> and 0.72 for the ADC<sub>ratio_min</sub> [the ADC<sub>tumor_min</sub> divided by the ADC<sub>benign</sub>]; <i>p</i> = 0.043). When stratified by PCa zonal location, the ADC<sub>ratio_mean</sub> had significantly more robust accuracy in the transition zone (the AUC value increased from 0.63 for ADC<sub>tumor_mean</sub> to 0.87 for ADC<sub>ratio_mean</sub>; <i>p</i> = 0.019) compared with the peripheral zone (the AUC value increased from 0.74 for ADC<sub>tumor_mean</sub> to 0.78 for ADC<sub>ratio_mean</sub>; <i>p</i> = 0.44). When analyzed on the basis of endorectal coil use, the ADC<sub>ratio_mean</sub> performed nonsignificantly better in both the endorectal coil and non-endorectal coil subcohorts, although it performed better in the former. <b>CONCLUSION.</b> As an intrapatient-normalized diagnostic tool, the ADC ratio provided the best AUC value for discrimination of low-grade from high-grade PCa on 3-T MRI.
Medical subject headings
- Diffusion Magnetic Resonance Imaging
- Prostatic Neoplasms