Revisiting quantitative multi-parametric MRI of benign prostatic hyperplasia and its differentiation from transition zone cancer

  • Aritrick Chatterjee
  • Alexander J. Gallan
  • Dianning He
  • Xiaobing Fan
  • Devkumar Mustafi
  • Ambereen Yousuf
  • Tatjana Antic
  • Gregory S. Karczmar
  • Aytekin OtoEmail author



This study investigates the multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) appearance of different types of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and whether quantitative mpMRI is effective in differentiating between prostate cancer (PCa) and BPH.

Materials and methods

Patients (n = 60) with confirmed PCa underwent preoperative 3T MRI. T2-weighted, multi-echo T2-weighted, diffusion weighted and dynamic contrast enhanced images (DCE) were obtained prior to undergoing prostatectomy. PCa and BPH (cystic, glandular or stromal) were identified in the transition zone and matched with MRI. Quantitative mpMRI metrics: T2, ADC and DCE-MRI parameters using an empirical mathematical model were measured.


ADC values were significantly lower (p < 0.001) in PCa compared to all BPH types and can differentiate between PCa and BPH with high accuracy (AUC = 0.87, p < 0.001). T2 values were significantly lower (p < 0.001) in PCa compared to cystic BPH only, while glandular (p = 0.27) and stromal BPH (p = 0.99) showed no significant difference from PCa. BPH mimics PCa in the transition zone on DCE-MRI evidenced by no significant difference between them. mpMRI values of glandular (ADC = 1.31 ± 0.22 µm2/ms, T2 = 115.7 ± 37.3 ms) and cystic BPH (ADC = 1.92 ± 0.43 µm2/ms, T2 = 242.8 ± 117.9 ms) are significantly different. There was no significant difference in ADC (p = 0.72) and T2 (p = 0.46) between glandular and stromal BPH.


Multiparametric MRI and specifically quantitative ADC values can be used for differentiating PCa and BPH, improving PCa diagnosis in the transition zone. However, DCE-MRI metrics are not effective in distinguishing PCa and BPH. Glandular BPH are not hyperintense on ADC and T2 as previously thought and have similar quantitative mpMRI measurements to stromal BPH. Glandular and cystic BPH appear differently on mpMRI and are histologically different.


Prostate cancer Benign prostatic hyperplasia Cystic Stromal Glandular 



Dr Aytekin Oto has the following disclosures - Research Grant, Koninklijke Philips NV Research Grant, Guerbet SA Research Grant, Profound Medical Inc. Medical Advisory Board, Profound Medical Inc Speaker, Bracco Group.


Philips Healthcare and National Institutes of Health (NIH R01 CA172801 and NIH 1S10OD018448-01).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interests.

Ethical approval

The study was conducted after institutional review board approval and was compliant with Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.

Informed consent

Informed patient consent was obtained for recruiting patients in this study.


  1. 1.
    Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2018. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians. 2018; 68(1):7-30.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    McNeal JE, Redwine EA, Freiha FS, Stamey TA. Zonal distribution of prostatic adenocarcinoma. Correlation with histologic pattern and direction of spread. The American journal of surgical pathology. 1988; 12(12):897-906.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    McNeal J, Noldus J. Limitations of transition zone needle biopsy findings in the prediction of transition zone cancer and tissue composition of benign nodular hyperplasia. Urology. 1996; 48(5):751-6.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Koppie TM, Bianco FJ, Kuroiwa K, et al. The clinical features of anterior prostate cancers. BJU international. 2006; 98(6):1167-71.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Berry SJ, Coffey DS, Walsh PC, Ewing LL. The development of human benign prostatic hyperplasia with age. J Urol. 1984; 132(3):474-9.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Schiebler ML, Tomaszewski JE, Bezzi M, et al. Prostatic carcinoma and benign prostatic hyperplasia: correlation of high-resolution MR and histopathologic findings. Radiology. 1989; 172(1):131-7.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Turnbull LW, Buckley DL, Turnbull LS, Liney GP, Knowles AJ. Differentiation of prostatic carcinoma and benign prostatic hyperplasia: Correlation between dynamic Gd-DTPA-enhanced MR imaging and histopathology. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging. 1999; 9(2):311-6.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Oto A, Kayhan A, Jiang Y, et al. Prostate Cancer: Differentiation of Central Gland Cancer from Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia by Using Diffusion-weighted and Dynamic Contrast-enhanced MR Imaging. Radiology. 2010; 257(3):715-23.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kitzing YX, Prando A, Varol C, Karczmar GS, Maclean F, Oto A. Benign Conditions That Mimic Prostate Carcinoma: MR Imaging Features with Histopathologic Correlation. RadioGraphics. 2016; 36(1):162-75.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Epstein JI, Paull G, Eggleston JC, Walsh PC. Prognosis of Untreated Stage A1 Prostatic Carcinoma: A Study of 94 Cases with Extended Followup. The Journal of urology. 1986; 136(4):837-9.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Blute ML, Zincke H, Farrow GM. Long-Term Followup of Young Patients with Stage a Adenocarcinoma of the Prostate. The Journal of urology. 1986; 136(4):840-3.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kim CK, Park BK, Lee HM, Kwon GY. Value of diffusion-weighted imaging for the prediction of prostate cancer location at 3T using a phased-array coil: preliminary results. Invest Radiol. 2007; 42(12):842-7.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tamada T, Sone T, Jo Y, et al. Apparent diffusion coefficient values in peripheral and transition zones of the prostate: Comparison between normal and malignant prostatic tissues and correlation with histologic grade. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2008; 28(3):720-6.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ishida J, Sugimura K, Okizuka H, et al. Benign prostatic hyperplasia: value of MR imaging for determining histologic type. Radiology. 1994; 190(2):329-31.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Thai JN, Narayanan HA, George AK, et al. Validation of PI-RADS Version 2 in Transition Zone Lesions for the Detection of Prostate Cancer. Radiology. 2018; 288(2):485-91.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Weinreb JC. Organized Chaos: Does PI-RADS Version 2 Work in the Transition Zone? Radiology. 2018; 288(2):492-4.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chatterjee A, He D, Fan X, et al. Performance of ultrafast DCE-MRI for diagnosis of prostate cancer. Academic Radiology. 2018; 25(3):349-58.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    He D, Chatterjee A, Fan X, et al. Feasibility of Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging Using Low-Dose Gadolinium: Comparative Performance With Standard Dose in Prostate Cancer Diagnosis. Investigative Radiology. 2018; 53(10):609-15.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fan X, Medved M, River JN, et al. New model for analysis of dynamic contrast‐enhanced MRI data distinguishes metastatic from nonmetastatic transplanted rodent prostate tumors. Magnetic resonance in medicine. 2004; 51(3):487-94.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Akin O, Sala E, Moskowitz CS, et al. Transition Zone Prostate Cancers: Features, Detection, Localization, and Staging at Endorectal MR Imaging. Radiology. 2006; 239(3):784-92.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kayhan A, Fan X, Oommen J, Oto A. Multi-parametric MR imaging of transition zone prostate cancer: Imaging features, detection and staging. World Journal of Radiology. 2010; 2(5):180-7.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sato C, Naganawa S, Nakamura T, et al. Differentiation of noncancerous tissue and cancer lesions by apparent diffusion coefficient values in transition and peripheral zones of the prostate. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging. 2005; 21(3):258-62.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Noworolski SM, Vigneron DB, Chen AP, Kurhanewicz J. Combined Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced MRI and MR Diffusion Imaging to Distinguish Between Glandular and Stromal Prostatic Tissues. Magnetic Resonance Imaging. 2008; 26(8):1071-80.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, et al. PI-RADS Prostate Imaging – Reporting and Data System: 2015, Version 2. European Urology. 2016; 69(1):16-40.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Li H, Sugimura K, Kaji Y, et al. Conventional MRI Capabilities in the Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer in the Transition Zone. American Journal of Roentgenology. 2006; 186(3):729-42.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Guneyli S, Ward E, Thomas S, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of benign prostatic hyperplasia. Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology. 2016; 22(3):215-9.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kozlowski P, Chang SD, Jones EC, Berean KW, Chen H, Goldenberg SL. Combined diffusion-weighted and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI for prostate cancer diagnosis—Correlation with biopsy and histopathology. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging. 2006; 24(1):108-13.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rosenkrantz AB, Kim S, Campbell N, Gaing B, Deng F-M, Taneja SS. Transition Zone Prostate Cancer: Revisiting the Role of Multiparametric MRI at 3 T. American Journal of Roentgenology. 2015; 204(3):W266-W72.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Chesnais AL, Niaf E, Bratan F, et al. Differentiation of transitional zone prostate cancer from benign hyperplasia nodules: Evaluation of discriminant criteria at multiparametric MRI. Clinical Radiology. 2013; 68(6):e323-e30.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Schlemmer H-P, Merkle J, Grobholz R, et al. Can pre-operative contrast-enhanced dynamic MR imaging for prostate cancer predict microvessel density in prostatectomy specimens? European Radiology. 2004; 14(2):309-17.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Verma S, Turkbey B, Muradyan N, et al. Overview of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in prostate cancer diagnosis and management. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012; 198(6):1277-88.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Bourne RM, Kurniawan N, Cowin G, et al. Microscopic diffusivity compartmentation in formalin-fixed prostate tissue. Magn Reson Med. 2012; 68(2):614-20.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Chatterjee A, Watson G, Myint E, Sved P, McEntee M, Bourne R. Changes in Epithelium, Stroma, and Lumen Space Correlate More Strongly with Gleason Pattern and Are Stronger Predictors of Prostate ADC Changes than Cellularity Metrics. Radiology. 2015; 277(3):751-62.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Langer DL, van der Kwast TH, Evans AJ, et al. Prostate tissue composition and MR measurements: investigating the relationships between ADC, T2, K(trans), v(e), and corresponding histologic features. Radiology. 2010; 255(2):485-94.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Bartsch G, Muller HR, Oberholzer M, Rohr HP. Light microscopic stereological analysis of the normal human prostate and of benign prostatic hyperplasia. J Urol. 1979; 122(4):487-91.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Siegel YI, Zaidel L, Hammel I, Korczak D, Lindner A. Morphometric evaluation of benign prostatic hyperplasia. Eur Urol. 1990; 18(1):71-3.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Bourne R, Panagiotaki E. Limitations and Prospects for Diffusion-Weighted MRI of the Prostate. Diagnostics. 2016; 6(2):21.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Panagiotaki E, Chan RW, Dikaios N, et al. Microstructural Characterization of Normal and Malignant Human Prostate Tissue With Vascular, Extracellular, and Restricted Diffusion for Cytometry in Tumours Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Investigative Radiology. 2015; 50(4):218-27.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Sabouri S, Chang SD, Savdie R, et al. Luminal Water Imaging: A New MR Imaging T2 Mapping Technique for Prostate Cancer Diagnosis. Radiology. 2017; 284(2):451-9.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Chatterjee A, Bourne R, Wang S, et al. Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer with Noninvasive Estimation of Prostate Tissue Composition by Using Hybrid Multidimensional MR Imaging: A Feasibility Study. Radiology. 2018; 287(3):864-72.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Tofts PS, Brix G, Buckley DL, et al. Estimating kinetic parameters from dynamic contrast-enhanced t1-weighted MRI of a diffusable tracer: Standardized quantities and symbols. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging. 1999; 10(3):223-32.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Buckley DL. Uncertainty in the analysis of tracer kinetics using dynamic contrast-enhanced T1-weighted MRI. Magnetic Resonance in Medicine. 2002; 47(3):601-6.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Isebaert S, De Keyzer F, Haustermans K, et al. Evaluation of semi-quantitative dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI parameters for prostate cancer in correlation to whole-mount histopathology. European Journal of Radiology. 2012; 81(3):e217-e22.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Jansen SA, Fan X, Medved M, et al. Characterizing early contrast uptake of ductal carcinoma in situ with high temporal resolution dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI of the breast: a pilot study. Phys Med Biol. 2010; 55(19):473–85.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Fan X, Medved M, Karczmar GS, et al. Diagnosis of suspicious breast lesions using an empirical mathematical model for dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. Magnetic Resonance Imaging. 2007; 25(5):593-603.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Aritrick Chatterjee
    • 1
  • Alexander J. Gallan
    • 2
  • Dianning He
    • 1
    • 3
  • Xiaobing Fan
    • 1
  • Devkumar Mustafi
    • 1
  • Ambereen Yousuf
    • 1
  • Tatjana Antic
    • 2
  • Gregory S. Karczmar
    • 1
  • Aytekin Oto
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyUniversity of ChicagoChicagoUSA
  2. 2.Department of PathologyUniversity of ChicagoChicagoUSA
  3. 3.Sino-Dutch Biomedical and Information Engineering SchoolNortheastern UniversityShenyangPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations