La radiologia medica

, Volume 124, Issue 2, pp 87–93 | Cite as

The evaluation of prostate lesions with IVIM DWI and MR perfusion parameters at 3T MRI

  • Murat Beyhan
  • Recep Sade
  • Erdem Koc
  • Senol Adanur
  • Mecit KantarciEmail author


The purpose of our study was to analyze the difference between IVIM DWI and perfusion parameters of malignant lesions and benign lesions–normal prostate tissue.


This prospective study included 31 patients who had multiparametric prostate MRI with IVIM DWI due to elevated prostate-specific antigen level and clinical suspicion between February 2015 and September 2016.


For peripheral zone, the mean values of Ktrans, Kep, iAUC, χ2 and f were significantly higher in malignant lesions, and the mean values of Dt were significantly lower in malignant lesions (p 0.00, p 0.02, p 0.00, p 0.02 and p 0.00, respectively). For transitional zone, the mean values of Ktrans, Ve, iAUC, χ2 and f were significantly higher in malignant lesions, and the mean values of Dp and Dt were significantly lower in malignant lesions (p 0.00, p 0.00, p 0.00, p 0.00, p 0.00, p 0.02 and p 0.00, respectively). For whole prostate gland, the mean values of Ktrans, Kep, Ve, iAUC, χ2 and f were significantly higher in malignant lesions, and the mean values of Dp and Dt were significantly lower in malignant lesions (p 0.00, p 0.03, p 0.00, p 0.00, p 0.00, p 0.01, p 0.04 and p 0.00, respectively).


Restricted diffusion–pseudodiffusion and increased perfusion parameters are important to differentiate prostate cancer from benign pathologies. It is also important to keep in mind that transitional zone and peripheral zone tumors may have different perfusion and diffusion parameters. Future studies are needed to confirm our findings.


Prostate lesion Magnetic resonance imaging IVIM Perfusion 



We thank Henry Rusinek (PhD) for helping us to reach and use FireVoxel (IVIM-DWI evaluation program).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.


  1. 1.
    Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A (2016) Cancer statistics, 2016. CA Cancer J Clin 66(1):7–30CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Adhyam M, Gupta AK (2012) A review on the clinical utility of PSA in cancer prostate. Indian J Surg Oncol 3(2):120–129CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bhatia C, Phongkitkarun S, Booranapitaksonti D, Kochakarn W, Chaleumsanyakorn P (2007) Diagnostic accuracy of MRI/MRSI for patients with persistently high PSA levels and negative TRUS-guided biopsy results. J Med Assoc Thailand = Chotmaihet Thangphaet 90(7):1391–1399Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lunacek A, Simon J, Bernt R, Huber M, Plas E, Mrstik C (2013) Increased rate of positive biopsies using a combination of MR-Tomography, spectroscopy and diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging prior to prostate biopsies in patients with persistent elevated prostate-specific antigen values: a retrospective analysis. Urol Ann 5(2):76–80CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Russo G, Mischi M, Scheepens W, De la Rosette JJ, Wijkstra H (2012) Angiogenesis in prostate cancer: onset, progression and imaging. BJU Int 110(11 Pt C):E794–E808CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Anwar SS, Anwar Khan Z, Shoaib Hamid R, Haroon F, Sayani R, Beg M et al (2014) Assessment of apparent diffusion coefficient values as predictor of aggressiveness in peripheral zone prostate cancer: comparison with Gleason score. ISRN Radiol 2014:263417CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Shinmoto H, Tamura C, Soga S, Shiomi E, Yoshihara N, Kaji T et al (2012) An intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion-weighted imaging study of prostate cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 199(4):W496–W500CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Katahira K, Takahara T, Kwee TC, Oda S, Suzuki Y, Morishita S et al (2011) Ultra-high-b-value diffusion-weighted MR imaging for the detection of prostate cancer: evaluation in 201 cases with histopathological correlation. Eur Radiol 21(1):188–196CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Le Bihan D, Breton E, Lallemand D, Grenier P, Cabanis E, Laval-Jeantet M (1986) MR imaging of intravoxel incoherent motions: application to diffusion and perfusion in neurologic disorders. Radiology 161(2):401–407CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Le Bihan D, Breton E, Lallemand D, Aubin ML, Vignaud J, Laval-Jeantet M (1988) Separation of diffusion and perfusion in intravoxel incoherent motion MR imaging. Radiology 168(2):497–505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Verma S, Turkbey B, Muradyan N, Rajesh A, Cornud F, Haider MA et al (2012) Overview of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in prostate cancer diagnosis and management. AJR Am J Roentgenol 198(6):1277–1288CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cho E, Chung DJ, Yeo DM, Sohn D, Son Y, Kim T et al (2015) Optimal cut-off value of perfusion parameters for diagnosing prostate cancer and for assessing aggressiveness associated with Gleason score. Clin Imaging 39(5):834–840CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Riches SF, Payne GS, Morgan VA, Dearnaley D, Morgan S, Partridge M et al (2015) Multivariate modelling of prostate cancer combining magnetic resonance derived T2, diffusion, dynamic contrast-enhanced and spectroscopic parameters. Eur Radiol 25(5):1247–1256CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Italian Society of Medical Radiology 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Murat Beyhan
    • 1
  • Recep Sade
    • 2
  • Erdem Koc
    • 3
  • Senol Adanur
    • 4
  • Mecit Kantarci
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Radiology ClinicTokat State HospitalTokatTurkey
  2. 2.Department of Radiology, School of MedicineAtaturk UniversityYakutiye, ErzurumTurkey
  3. 3.Department of Urology, School of MedicineYıldırım Beyazıt UniversityErzurumTurkey
  4. 4.School of Medicine, Department of UrologyAtaturk UniversityErzurumTurkey

Personalised recommendations