Characterization of prostatic cancer lesion and gleason grade using a continuous-time random-walk diffusion model at high b-values

Distinguishing between prostatic cancer (PCa) and chronic prostatitis (CP) is sometimes challenging, and Gleason grading is strongly associated with prognosis in PCa. The continuous-time random-walk diffusion (CTRW) model has shown potential in distinguishing between PCa and CP as well as predicting Gleason grading.This study aimed to quantify the CTRW parameters (α, β & Dm) and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) of PCa and CP tissues; and then assess the diagnostic value of CTRW and ADC parameters in differentiating CP from PCa and low-grade PCa from high-grade PCa lesions.Retrospective (retrospective analysis using prospective designed data).Thirty-one PCa patients undergoing prostatectomy (mean age 74 years, range 64–91 years), and thirty CP patients undergoing prostate needle biopsies (mean age 68 years, range 46–79 years).MRI scans on a 3.0T scanner (uMR790, United Imaging Healthcare, Shanghai, China). DWI were acquired with 12 b-values (0, 50, 100, 150, 200, 500, 800, 1200, 1500, 2000, 2500, 3000 s/mm2).CTRW parameters and ADC were quantified in PCa and CP lesions.The Mann-Whitney U test was used to evaluate the differences in CTRW parameters and ADC between PCa and CP, high-grade PCa, and low-grade PCa. Spearman’s correlation of the pathologic grading group (GG) with CTRW parameters and ADC was evaluated. The usefulness of CTRW parameters, ADC, and their combinations (Dm, α and β; Dm, α, β, and ADC) to differentiate PCa from CP and high-grade PCa from low-grade PCa was determined by logistic regression and receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) analysis. Delong test was used to compare the differences among AUCs.Significant differences were found for the CTRW parameters (α, Dm) between CP and PCa (all P<0.001), high-grade PCa, and low-grade PCa (α:P=0.024, Dm:P=0.021). GG is correlated with certain CTRW parameters and ADC(α:P<0.001,r=-0.795; Dm:P<0.001,r=-0.762;ADC:P<0.001,r=-0.790). Moreover, CTRW parameters (α, β, Dm) combined with ADC showed the best diagnostic efficacy for distinguishing between PCa and CP as well as predicting Gleason grading. The differences among AUCs of ADC, CTRW parameters and their combinations were not statistically significant (P=0.051–0.526).CTRW parameters α and Dm, as well as their combination were beneficial to distinguish between CA and PCa, low-grade PCa and high-grade PCa lesions, and CTRW parameters and ADC had comparable diagnostic performance.