Abdominal Imaging

, Volume 40, Issue 7, pp 2523–2528 | Cite as

Short-term reproducibility of apparent diffusion coefficient estimated from diffusion-weighted MRI of the prostate

  • Meredith Sadinski
  • Milica Medved
  • Ibrahim Karademir
  • Shiyang Wang
  • Yahui Peng
  • Yulei Jiang
  • Steffen Sammet
  • Gregory Karczmar
  • Aytekin Oto
Article

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of the study is to determine short-term reproducibility of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) estimated from diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance (DW-MR) imaging of the prostate.

Methods

Fourteen patients with biopsy-proven prostate cancer were studied under an Institutional Review Board-approved protocol. Each patient underwent two, consecutive and identical DW-MR scans on a 3T system. ADC values were calculated from each scan and a deformable registration was performed to align corresponding images. The prostate and cancerous regions of interest (ROIs) were independently analyzed by two radiologists. The prostate volume was analyzed by sextant. Per-voxel absolute and relative percentage variations in ADC were compared between sextants. Per-voxel and per-ROI variations in ADC were calculated for cancerous ROIs.

Results

Per-voxel absolute difference in ADC in the prostate ranged from 0 to 1.60 × 10−3 mm2/s (per-voxel relative difference 0% to 200%, mean 10.5%). Variation in ADC was largest in the posterior apex (0% to 200%, mean 11.6%). Difference in ADC variation between sextants was not statistically significant. Cancer ROIs’ per-voxel variation in ADC ranged from 0.001 × 10−3 to 0.841 × 10−3 mm2/s (0% to 67.4%, mean 11.2%) and per-ROI variation ranged from 0 to 0.463 × 10−3 mm2/s (mean 0.122 × 10−3 mm2/s).

Conclusions

Variation in ADC within the human prostate is reasonably small, and is on the order of 10%.

Keywords

DWI ADC Prostate Reproducibility MRI 

Notes

Acknowledgement

This work was supported in part by the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering of the National Institutes of Health under grant number T32 EB002103.

References

  1. 1.
    Haider MA, van der Kwast TH, Tanguay J, et al. (2007) Combined T2-weighted and diffusion-weighted MRI for localization of prostate cancer. Am J Roentgenol 189(2):323–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tan CH, Wei W, Johnson V, Kundra V (2012) Diffusion-weighted MRI in the detection of prostate cancer: meta-analysis. Am J Roentgenol 199(4):822–829CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kajihara H, Hayashida Y, Murakami R, et al. (2009) Usefulness of diffusion-weighted imaging in the localization of prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 74(2):399–403CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Oto A, Yang C, Kayhan A, et al. (2011) Diffusion-weighted and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI of prostate cancer: correlation of quantitative MR parameters with gleason score and tumor angiogenesis. Am J Roentgenol 197(6):1382–1390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rosenkrantz AB, Mannelli L, Kong XT, et al. (2011) Prostate cancer: utility of fusion of T2-weighted and high b-value diffusion-weighted images for peripheral zone tumor detection and localization. J Magn Reson Imaging 34(1):95–100CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lim HK, Kim JK, Kim KA, Cho K-S (2009) Prostate cancer: apparent diffusion coefficient map with T2-weighted images for detection-A Multireader study. Radiology 250(1):145–151CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Woodfield CA, Tung GA, Grand DJ, et al. (2010) Diffusion-weighted MRI of peripheral zone prostate cancer: comparison of tumor apparent diffusion coefficient with Gleason score and percentage of tumor on core biopsy. Am J Roentgenol 194(4):W316–W322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kitajima K, Kaji Y, Fukabori Y, et al. (2010) Prostate cancer detection with 3 T MRI: comparison of diffusion-weighted imaging and dynamic contrast-enhanced mri in combination with T2-weighted imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 31(3):625–631CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mehta R, Kyshtoobayeva A, Kurosaki T, et al. (2001) Independent association of angiogenesis index with outcome in prostate cancer. Clin Cancer Res 7(1):81–88PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hosseinzadeh K, Schwarz SD (2004) Endorectal diffusion-weighted imaging in prostate cancer to differentiate malignant and benign peripheral zone tissue. J Magn Reson Imaging 20(4):654–661CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Issa B (2002) In vivo measurement of the apparent diffusion coefficient in normal and malignant prostatic tissues using echo-planar imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 16(2):196–200CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Padhani AR, Liu G, Chenevert TL, et al. (2009) Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging as a cancer biomarker: consensus and recommendations. Neoplasia 11(2):102–125PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Clarke LP, Croft BS, Nordstrom R, et al. (2009) Quantitative imaging for evaluation of response to cancer therapy. Transl Oncol 2(4):195–197PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sasaki M, Yamada K, Watanabe Y, et al. (2008) Variability in absolute apparent diffusion coefficient values across different platforms may be substantial: a multivendor, multi-institutional comparison study. Radiology 249(2):624–630CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sharp GC, Kandasamy N, Singh H, Folkert M (2007) GPU-based streaming architectures for fast cone-beam CT image reconstruction and demons deformable registration. Phys Med Biol 52(19):5771–5783CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chenevert TL, Galban CJ, Ivancevic MK, et al. (2011) Diffusion coefficient measurement using a temperature-controlled fluid for quality control in multicenter studies. J Magn Reson Imaging 34(4):983–987PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Malyarenko D, Galban CJ, Londy FJ, et al. (2012) Multi-system repeatability and reproducibility of apparent diffusion coefficient measurement using an ice-water phantom. J Magn Reson Imaging 37(5):1238–1246PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Braithwaite AC, Dale BM, Boll DT, Merkle EM (2009) Short- and midterm reproducibility of apparent diffusion coefficient measurements at 3.0-T diffusion-weighted imaging of the abdomen. Radiology 250(2):459–465CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kim SY, Lee SS, Byun JH, et al. (2010) Malignant hepatic tumors: short-term reproducibility of apparent diffusion coefficients with breath-hold and respiratory-triggered diffusion-weighted MR imaging. Radiology 255(3):815–823CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Litjens GJS, Hambrock T, Hulsbergen-van de Kaa C, Barentsz JO, Huisman HJ (2012) Interpatient variation in normal peripheral zone apparent diffusion coefficient: effect on the prediction of prostate cancer aggressiveness. Radiology 265(1):260–266CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gibbs P, Pickles MD, Turnbull LW (2007) Repeatability of echo-planar-based diffusion measurements of the human prostate at 3 T. Magn Reson Imaging 25(10):1423–1429CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Meredith Sadinski
    • 1
  • Milica Medved
    • 1
  • Ibrahim Karademir
    • 1
    • 2
  • Shiyang Wang
    • 1
  • Yahui Peng
    • 1
    • 3
  • Yulei Jiang
    • 1
  • Steffen Sammet
    • 1
  • Gregory Karczmar
    • 1
  • Aytekin Oto
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyUniversity of ChicagoChicagoUSA
  2. 2.Department of RadiologyEskisehir Military HospitalEskisehirTurkey
  3. 3.School of Electronic and Information EngineeringBeijing Jiaotong UniversityBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations