Diagnostic performance of diffusion-weighted imaging for prostate cancer: Peripheral zone versus transition zone
- PMID: 29933396
- PMCID: PMC6014656
- DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0199636
Diagnostic performance of diffusion-weighted imaging for prostate cancer: Peripheral zone versus transition zone
Abstract
Objectives: Diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) has been shown to be an important component of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI). We compared performance of DWI for detection of prostate cancer (PCa) in peripheral zone (PZ) and transition zone (TZ) of prostate.
Materials and methods: We reviewed data of 460 subjects who underwent preoperative 3.0-Tesla mpMRI and subsequently radical prostatectomy. Level of suspicion for PCa was graded using 5-grade Likert-scale from DWI. Topographic analyses were performed for location of tumor foci at each surgical specimen. Among those with DWI grade ≥ III, we analyzed concordance rate on the location of radiologic and pathologic index lesions between DWI and surgical specimens.
Results: Among 460 patients, 351 (76.3%) patients showed suspicious DWI lesions (57.5% in PZ, 42.5% in TZ). Multivariates regression analyses revealed significant associations between high DWI grade and adverse pathologic outcomes including pathologic stage, Gleason score, tumor volume and extracapsular extension (all p < 0.05). Overall concordance rates between DWI and surgical specimen were 75.8%, significantly higher in PZ than TZ (82.2% vs. 67.1% p = 0.002). Such concordance rate showed a positive linear association with increase in DWI grading (p < 0.001). Among 109 patients with DWI grade I-II, 28 (25.7%) harbored high grade disease (pathologic Gleason score ≥ 4 + 3).
Conclusions: DWI detects tumors in PZ of prostate more accurately than those in TZ. Such accuracy of DWI was shown to be more evident with higher DWI grade. Meanwhile, a negative DWI did not guarantee absence of high grade PCa.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Figures
References
-
- Expert Panel on Urologic Imaging:, Coakley FV, Oto A, Alexander LF, Allen BC, Davis BJ, Froemming AT, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria prostate cancer-pretreatment detection, staging, and surveillance. J Am Coll Radiol. 2017. May;14(5S):S245–S257. doi: 10.1016/j.jacr.2017.02.026 - DOI - PubMed
-
- Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, Choyke P, Verma S, Villeirs G, et al. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol. 2012. April;22(4):746–757. doi: 10.1007/s00330-011-2377-y - DOI - PMC - PubMed
-
- Hambrock T, Somford DM, Huisman HJ, van Oort IM, Witjes JA, Hulsbergen-van de Kaa CA, et al. Relationship between apparent diffusion coefficients at 3.0-T MR imaging and Gleason grade in peripheral zone prostate cancer. Radiology. 2011. May;259(2):453–461 doi: 10.1148/radiol.11091409 - DOI - PubMed
-
- Verma S, Rajesh A, Morales H, Lemen L, Bills G, Delworth M, et al. Assessment of aggressiveness of prostate cancer: correlation of apparent diffusion coefficient with histologic grade after radical prostatectomy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;196(2):374–381 doi: 10.2214/AJR.10.4441 - DOI - PubMed
-
- Choi YJ, Kim JK, Kim N, Kim KW, Choi EK, Cho KS. Functional MR imaging of prostate cancer. Radiographics. 2007;27:63–75 doi: 10.1148/rg.271065078 - DOI - PubMed
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical
