Apparent Diffusion Coefficient Values of Prostate Cancer: Comparison of 2D and 3D ROIs

2018 ◽  
Vol 210 (1) ◽  
pp. 113-117 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tsutomu Tamada ◽  
Chenchan Huang ◽  
Justin M. Ream ◽  
Myles Taffel ◽  
Samir S. Taneja ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Diffusion Coefficient ◽  
Apparent Diffusion Coefficient ◽  
Apparent Diffusion Coefficient Values ◽  
Apparent Diffusion ◽  
2D And 3D

scholarly journals Apparent Diffusion Coefficient Values of the Benign Central Zone of the Prostate: Comparison With Low- and High-Grade Prostate Cancer

2015 ◽  
Vol 205 (2) ◽  
pp. 331-336 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rajan T. Gupta ◽  
Christopher R. Kauffman ◽  
Kirema Garcia-Reyes ◽  
Mark L. Palmeri ◽  
John F. Madden ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Diffusion Coefficient ◽  
Apparent Diffusion Coefficient ◽  
Central Zone ◽  
High Grade ◽  
Apparent Diffusion Coefficient Values ◽  
Apparent Diffusion

scholarly journals Assessment of Apparent Diffusion Coefficient Values as Predictor of Aggressiveness in Peripheral Zone Prostate Cancer: Comparison with Gleason Score

2014 ◽  
Vol 2014 ◽  
pp. 1-7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shayan Sirat Maheen Anwar ◽  
Zahid Anwar Khan ◽  
Rana Shoaib Hamid ◽  
Fahd Haroon ◽  
Raza Sayani ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Diffusion Coefficient ◽  
Apparent Diffusion Coefficient ◽  
Gleason Score ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Adc Value ◽  
Apparent Diffusion Coefficient Values ◽  
Apparent Diffusion Coefficient Value ◽  
Apparent Diffusion ◽  
Adc Values

Purpose. To determine association between apparent diffusion coefficient value on diffusion-weighted imaging and Gleason score in patients with prostate cancer. Methods. This retrospective case series was conducted at Radiology Department of Aga Khan University between June 2009 and June 2011. 28 patients with biopsy-proven prostate cancer were included who underwent ultrasound guided sextant prostate biopsy and MRI. MRI images were analyzed on diagnostic console and regions of interest were drawn. Data were entered and analyzed on SPSS 20.0. ADC values were compared with Gleason score using one-way ANOVA test. Results. In 28 patients, 168 quadrants were biopsied and 106 quadrants were positive for malignancy. 89 lesions with proven malignancy showed diffusion restriction. The mean ADC value for disease with a Gleason score of 6 was 935 mm2/s (SD=248.4 mm2/s); Gleason score of 7 was 837 mm2/s (SD=208.5 mm2/s); Gleason score of 8 was 614 mm2/s (SD=108 mm2/s); and Gleason score of 9 was 571 mm2/s (SD=82 mm2/s). Inverse relationship was observed between Gleason score and mean ADC values. Conclusion. DWI and specifically quantitative ADC values may help differentiate between low-risk (Gleason score, 6), intermediate-risk (Gleason score, 7), and high-risk (Gleason score 8 and 9) prostate cancers, indirectly determining the aggressiveness of the disease.

Assessment of prostate cancer aggressiveness using apparent diffusion coefficient values: impact of patient race and age

2017 ◽  
Vol 42 (6) ◽  
pp. 1744-1751 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tsutomu Tamada ◽  
Vinay Prabhu ◽  
Jianhong Li ◽  
James S. Babb ◽  
Samir S. Taneja ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Diffusion Coefficient ◽  
Apparent Diffusion Coefficient ◽  
Apparent Diffusion Coefficient Values ◽  
Patient Race ◽  
Cancer Aggressiveness ◽  
Apparent Diffusion

Impact of mandated prospectively reported apparent diffusion coefficient values on the rates of positivity for clinically significant prostate cancer by PI-RADS score

2020 ◽  
pp. 028418512091561
Author(s):  
Hiram Shaish ◽  
Randy Casals ◽  
Firas Ahmed ◽  
Jasnit Makkar ◽  
Sven Wenske
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Diffusion Coefficient ◽  
Apparent Diffusion Coefficient ◽  
Chi Square ◽  
Apparent Diffusion Coefficient Values ◽  
Apparent Diffusion ◽  
Adc Values ◽  
Clinically Significant ◽  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging Mri ◽  
The Impact

Background Prior research has shown that retrospectively measured apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) of prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) lesions is associated with clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) on targeted biopsy suggesting that ADC should be measured and reported prospectively. Purpose To assess the impact of mandatory prospective measurement of ADC on the rates of positivity across PI-RADS scores for csPCa. Material and Methods Consecutive patients who underwent ultrasound (US)-MRI fusion prostate biopsy from August 2018 to July 2019 and who had prospectively reported ADC were compared to control patients who did not. Rates of positivity by PI-RADS category were computed and compared using Chi-square. Multivariable regression was performed. Results In total, 126 patients (median age 65 years) with 165 prostate lesions (19, 51, 70, and 25 PI-RADS 2, 3, 4, and 5, respectively) and prospectively reported ADC values were compared to 113 control patients (median age 66 years) with 157 prostate lesions (17, 42, 64, and 34 PI-RADS 2, 3, 4, and 5, respectively). Rates of positivity across PI-RADS scores were similar between the two cohorts; 11%, 25%, 55%, and 76% and 0%, 21%, 56%, and 62% for PI-RADS 2, 3, 4, and 5 in the test and control cohorts, respectively (Chi-square P = 0.78). Multivariate logistic regression showed no significant association between the presence of prospectively measured ADC and csPCa (odds ratio 1.1, 95% confidence interval 0.7–1.7, P = 0.82). Conclusion Prospective ADC measurement may not impact PI-RADS category assignments or positivity rates for csPCa under current guidelines. Future versions of PI-RADS may need to incorporate ADC into scoring rules to realize their potential.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document