Performance of apparent diffusion coefficient values and ratios for the prediction of prostate cancer aggressiveness across different MRI acquisition settings.

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q2 Medicine
Ercan Karaarslan, Aylin Altan Kus, Deniz Alis, Umut Can Karaarslan, Yesim Saglican, Omer Burak Argun, Ali Riza Kural
{"title":"Performance of apparent diffusion coefficient values and ratios for the prediction of prostate cancer aggressiveness across different MRI acquisition settings.","authors":"Ercan Karaarslan, Aylin Altan Kus, Deniz Alis, Umut Can Karaarslan, Yesim Saglican, Omer Burak Argun, Ali Riza Kural","doi":"10.5152/dir.2022.20732","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>In this study, we assessed the performance of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) and diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) metrics and their ratios across different magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) acquisition settings, with or without an endorectal coil (ERC), for the evaluation of prostate cancer (PCa) aggressiveness using whole-mount specimens as a reference.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We retrospectively reviewed the data of prostate carcinoma patients with a Gleason score (GS) of 3+4 or higher who underwent prostate MRI using a 3T unit at our institution. They were divided into two groups based on the use of ERC for MRI acquisition, and patients who underwent prostate MRI with an ERC constituted the ERC (n = 55) data set, while the remaining patients accounted for the non-ERC data set (n = 41). DWI was performed with b-values of 50, 500, 1000, and 1,400 s/mm2, and ADC maps were automatically calculated. Additionally, computed DWI (cDWI) was performed with a b-value of 2000 s/mm2. Six ADC and two cDWI parameters were evaluated. In the ERC data set, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were plotted for each metric to determine the best cutoff threshold values for differentiating GS 3+4 PCa from that with a higher GS. The performance of these cutoff values was assessed in non-ERC dataset. The diagnostic accuracies and area under the curves (AUCs) of the metrics were compared using Fisher's exact test and De Long's method, respectively.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among all metrics, the ADCmean-ratio yielded the highest AUC, 0.84, for differing GS 3+4 PCa from that with a higher GS. The best threshold cutoff values of ADCmean-ratio (£0.51) for discriminating GS 3+4 PCa from that with a higher GS classified 48 patients out of 55 with an accuracy of 87.27%. However, there was no significant difference between each metric in terms of accuracy and AUC (p = 0.163 and 0.214). Similarly, in the non-ERC data set, the ADCmean-ratio provided the highest diagnostic accuracy (82.92%) by classifying 34 patients out of 41. However, Fisher's exact test yielded no significant difference between DWI and ADC metrics in terms of diagnostic accuracy in non-ERC data (p = 0.561).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The mean ADC ratio of the tumor to the normal prostate showed the highest accuracy and AUC in differentiating GS 3+4 PCa and PCa with a higher GS across different MRI acquisition settings; however, the performance of different ADC and DWI metrics did not differ significantly.</p>","PeriodicalId":50582,"journal":{"name":"Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology","volume":" ","pages":"12-20"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12278917/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5152/dir.2022.20732","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: In this study, we assessed the performance of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) and diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) metrics and their ratios across different magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) acquisition settings, with or without an endorectal coil (ERC), for the evaluation of prostate cancer (PCa) aggressiveness using whole-mount specimens as a reference.

Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the data of prostate carcinoma patients with a Gleason score (GS) of 3+4 or higher who underwent prostate MRI using a 3T unit at our institution. They were divided into two groups based on the use of ERC for MRI acquisition, and patients who underwent prostate MRI with an ERC constituted the ERC (n = 55) data set, while the remaining patients accounted for the non-ERC data set (n = 41). DWI was performed with b-values of 50, 500, 1000, and 1,400 s/mm2, and ADC maps were automatically calculated. Additionally, computed DWI (cDWI) was performed with a b-value of 2000 s/mm2. Six ADC and two cDWI parameters were evaluated. In the ERC data set, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were plotted for each metric to determine the best cutoff threshold values for differentiating GS 3+4 PCa from that with a higher GS. The performance of these cutoff values was assessed in non-ERC dataset. The diagnostic accuracies and area under the curves (AUCs) of the metrics were compared using Fisher's exact test and De Long's method, respectively.

Results: Among all metrics, the ADCmean-ratio yielded the highest AUC, 0.84, for differing GS 3+4 PCa from that with a higher GS. The best threshold cutoff values of ADCmean-ratio (£0.51) for discriminating GS 3+4 PCa from that with a higher GS classified 48 patients out of 55 with an accuracy of 87.27%. However, there was no significant difference between each metric in terms of accuracy and AUC (p = 0.163 and 0.214). Similarly, in the non-ERC data set, the ADCmean-ratio provided the highest diagnostic accuracy (82.92%) by classifying 34 patients out of 41. However, Fisher's exact test yielded no significant difference between DWI and ADC metrics in terms of diagnostic accuracy in non-ERC data (p = 0.561).

Conclusion: The mean ADC ratio of the tumor to the normal prostate showed the highest accuracy and AUC in differentiating GS 3+4 PCa and PCa with a higher GS across different MRI acquisition settings; however, the performance of different ADC and DWI metrics did not differ significantly.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

表观扩散系数值和比值在不同MRI采集设置下预测前列腺癌侵袭性的性能。
目的:在本研究中,我们评估了表观扩散系数(ADC)和扩散加权成像(DWI)指标的性能及其在不同磁共振成像(MRI)采集设置中的比例,有或没有直肠内线圈(ERC),用于评估前列腺癌(PCa)侵袭性,使用全载标本作为参考。方法:我们回顾性回顾了Gleason评分(GS)为3+4或更高的前列腺癌患者在我院使用3T设备进行前列腺MRI检查的资料。他们被分为两组,基于ERC的MRI采集,接受ERC前列腺MRI的患者构成ERC数据集(n = 55),而其余患者占非ERC数据集(n = 41)。在b值为50、500、1000和1400 s/mm2的情况下进行DWI,自动计算ADC图。此外,计算DWI (cDWI), b值为2000 s/mm2。评估6个ADC参数和2个cDWI参数。在ERC数据集中,绘制每个指标的受试者工作特征(ROC)曲线,以确定区分GS 3+4 PCa与更高GS PCa的最佳截止阈值。在非erc数据集中评估了这些截止值的性能。分别采用Fisher精确检验和De Long法比较指标的诊断准确率和曲线下面积(auc)。结果:在所有指标中,不同GS 3+4 PCa与较高GS PCa的ad均值-比值的AUC最高,为0.84。区分GS 3+4 PCa与GS较高PCa的最佳阈值截断值为0.51,对55例患者中的48例进行了分类,准确率为87.27%。然而,在准确度和AUC方面,每个指标之间没有显著差异(p = 0.163和0.214)。同样,在非erc数据集中,通过对41例患者中的34例进行分类,ADCmean-ratio提供了最高的诊断准确性(82.92%)。然而,Fisher精确检验显示DWI和ADC指标在非erc数据的诊断准确性方面没有显著差异(p = 0.561)。结论:肿瘤与正常前列腺的平均ADC比在不同的MRI采集条件下对GS - 3+4和GS较高的前列腺癌的鉴别准确率和AUC最高;然而,不同ADC和DWI指标的表现没有显著差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
4.80%
发文量
69
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology (Diagn Interv Radiol) is the open access, online-only official publication of Turkish Society of Radiology. It is published bimonthly and the journal’s publication language is English. The journal is a medium for original articles, reviews, pictorial essays, technical notes related to all fields of diagnostic and interventional radiology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信