Skip to main content

Dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MR imaging: the role of qualitative and quantitative parameters for evaluating prostate tumors stratified by Gleason score and PI-RADS v2



To investigate the role of qualitative and quantitative DCE-MRI parameters in prostate cancer (PCa) stratified by whole-mount histopathology (WMHP) Gleason score (GS) and PI-RADSv2.


This retrospective study included 323 PCa tumors in 254 men, who underwent 3T MRI prior to prostatectomy, 7/2009-12/2016. Qualitative DCE curve types included type 1 (progressive), type 2 (plateau) and type 3 (washout). Quantitative DCE-MRI pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters included Ktrans (influx volume transfer coefficient), Kep (efflux reflux rate constant) and iAUC (initial area under the curve). DCE-MRI features of true positive lesions were evaluated for overall, index, transition zone (TZ) and peripheral zone (PZ), based on GS grade (low = 6, high > 6) and PI-RADSv2 score using SPSSv24.


There were 57 (17.6%) low-grade and 266 (82.4%) high-grade PCa lesions. PI-RADSv2 3, 4 and 5 included 106, 120 and 97 lesions, respectively. 251 (77.7%) and 72 (22.3%) lesions were located in PZ and TZ, respectively. High-grade lesions had significantly higher proportion of Type 3 curves compared to low-grade lesions in overall (70.3% vs. 54.4%) and TZ (73.5% vs. 43.5%). As PI-RADSv2 increased, the proportion of type 3 curve significantly increased for overall (80.4–51.9%), index (80.4–54.7%) and PZ (78.7–52.1%) lesions. Among PK parameters, Ktrans (0.43 vs 0.32) and iAUC (8.99 vs 6.9) for overall PCa, Ktrans (0.43 vs 0.31) and iAUC (9 vs 6.67) for PZ PCa, and iAUC (8.94 vs 7.42) for index PCa were significantly higher for high-grade versus low-grade lesions. Also, Ktrans (0.51–0.34), Kep (1.75–1.29) and iAUC (9.79–7.6) for overall PCa, Ktrans (0.53–0.32), Kep (1.81–1.26) and iAUC (9.83–7.34) for PZ PCa; and Kep (1.79–1.17) and iAUC (11.3–8.45) for index PCa increased significantly with a higher PI-RADSv2 score.


The results of study show the possible utility of qualitative and quantitative DCE-MRI parameters for assessment of PCa GS and PI-RADSv2 categorization.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5


  1. Isebaert S, De Keyzer F, Haustermans K, Lerut E, Roskams T, Roebben I, Van Poppel H, Joniau S, Oyen R (2012) Evaluation of semi-quantitative dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI parameters for prostate cancer in correlation to whole-mount histopathology. Eur J Radiol 81 (3):e217-222. doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2011.01.107

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Alonzi R, Padhani AR, Allen C (2007) Dynamic contrast enhanced MRI in prostate cancer. Eur J Radiol 63 (3):335-350. doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2007.06.028

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bonekamp D, Jacobs MA, El-Khouli R, Stoianovici D, Macura KJ (2011) Advancements in MR imaging of the prostate: from diagnosis to interventions. Radiographics 31 (3):677-703. doi:10.1148/rg.313105139

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Kuhl CK, Schild HH (2000) Dynamic image interpretation of MRI of the breast. J Magn Reson Imaging 12 (6):965-974

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Vos EK, Litjens GJ, Kobus T, Hambrock T, Hulsbergen-van de Kaa CA, Barentsz JO, Huisman HJ, Scheenen TW (2013) Assessment of prostate cancer aggressiveness using dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging at 3 T. Eur Urol 64 (3):448-455. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2013.05.045

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Girouin N, Mege-Lechevallier F, Tonina Senes A, Bissery A, Rabilloud M, Marechal JM, Colombel M, Lyonnet D, Rouviere O (2007) Prostate dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI with simple visual diagnostic criteria: is it reasonable? Eur Radiol 17 (6):1498-1509. doi:10.1007/s00330-006-0478-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Rosenkrantz AB, Sabach A, Babb JS, Matza BW, Taneja SS, Deng FM (2013) Prostate cancer: comparison of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI techniques for localization of peripheral zone tumor. AJR Am J Roentgenol 201 (3):W471-478. doi:10.2214/ajr.12.9737

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Radiology ACo (2014) PIRADS  v2. Reston, Va: American College of Radiology

    Google Scholar 

  9. Sanz-Requena R, Marti-Bonmati L, Perez-Martinez R, Garcia-Marti G (2016) Dynamic contrast-enhanced case-control analysis in 3T MRI of prostate cancer can help to characterize tumor aggressiveness. Eur J Radiol 85 (11):2119-2126. doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2016.09.022

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Noworolski SM, Henry RG, Vigneron DB, Kurhanewicz J (2005) Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in normal and abnormal prostate tissues as defined by biopsy, MRI, and 3D MRSI. Magn Reson Med 53 (2):249-255. doi:10.1002/mrm.20374

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Tofts PS (1997) Modeling tracer kinetics in dynamic Gd-DTPA MR imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 7 (1):91-101

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Hara N, Okuizumi M, Koike H, Kawaguchi M, Bilim V (2005) Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) is a useful modality for the precise detection and staging of early prostate cancer. Prostate 62 (2):140-147. doi:10.1002/pros.20124

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Le JD, Tan N, Shkolyar E, Lu DY, Kwan L, Marks LS, Huang J, Margolis DJ, Raman SS, Reiter RE (2015) Multifocality and prostate cancer detection by multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: correlation with whole-mount histopathology. Eur Urol 67 (3):569-576. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2014.08.079

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Tan N, Lin WC, Khoshnoodi P, Asvadi NH, Yoshida J, Margolis DJ, Lu DS, Wu H, Sung KH, Lu DY, Huang J, Raman SS (2017) In-Bore 3-T MR-guided Transrectal Targeted Prostate Biopsy: Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2-based Diagnostic Performance for Detection of Prostate Cancer. Radiology 283 (1):130-139. doi:10.1148/radiol.2016152827

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Futterer JJ, Heijmink SW, Scheenen TW, Veltman J, Huisman HJ, Vos P, Hulsbergen-Van de Kaa CA, Witjes JA, Krabbe PF, Heerschap A, Barentsz JO (2006) Prostate cancer localization with dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging and proton MR spectroscopic imaging. Radiology 241 (2):449-458. doi:10.1148/radiol.2412051866

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Scheenen TW, Rosenkrantz AB, Haider MA, Futterer JJ (2015) Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Prostate Cancer Management: Current Status and Future Perspectives. Invest Radiol 50 (9):594-600. doi:10.1097/rli.0000000000000163

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Mussi TC, Martins T, Garcia RG, Filippi RZ, Lemos GC, Baroni RH (2017) Are Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Images Necessary for Prostate Cancer Detection on Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging? Clin Genitourin Cancer 15 (3):e447-e454. doi:10.1016/j.clgc.2016.10.001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Scialpi M, Rondoni V, Aisa MC, Martorana E, D’Andrea A, Malaspina CM, Orlandi A, Galassi G, Orlandi E, Scialpi P, Dragone M, Palladino D, Simeone A, Amenta M, Bianchi G (2017) Is contrast enhancement needed for diagnostic prostate MRI? Transl Androl Urol 6 (3):499-509. doi:10.21037/tau.2017.05.31

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Peng Y, Jiang Y, Yang C, Brown JB, Antic T, Sethi I, Schmid-Tannwald C, Giger ML, Eggener SE, Oto A (2013) Quantitative analysis of multiparametric prostate MR images: differentiation between prostate cancer and normal tissue and correlation with Gleason score--a computer-aided diagnosis development study. Radiology 267 (3):787-796. doi:10.1148/radiol.13121454

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Chen YJ, Chu WC, Pu YS, Chueh SC, Shun CT, Tseng WY (2012) Washout gradient in dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI is associated with tumor aggressiveness of prostate cancer. J Magn Reson Imaging 36 (4):912-919. doi:10.1002/jmri.23723

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Haq NF, Kozlowski P, Jones EC, Chang SD, Goldenberg SL, Moradi M (2015) A data-driven approach to prostate cancer detection from dynamic contrast enhanced MRI. Comput Med Imaging Graph 41:37-45. doi:10.1016/j.compmedimag.2014.06.017

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Quon J, Kielar AZ, Jain R, Schieda N (2015) Assessing the utilization of functional imaging in multiparametric prostate MRI in routine clinical practice. Clin Radiol 70 (4):373-378. doi:10.1016/j.crad.2014.12.001

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references


This work was supported by funds from the Integrated Diagnostics Program, Department of Radiological Sciences & Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine in our institution. We are grateful to Dr. Melina Hosseini and Dr. Sepideh Shakeri for editing the final version of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sohrab Afshari Mirak.

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval

This study was performed in accordance with the 1996 Health Information Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and under waiver of informed consent by the institutional review board (IRB).

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 20 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Afshari Mirak, S., Mohammadian Bajgiran, A., Sung, K. et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MR imaging: the role of qualitative and quantitative parameters for evaluating prostate tumors stratified by Gleason score and PI-RADS v2. Abdom Radiol 45, 2225–2234 (2020).

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:


  • Prostate cancer
  • Magnetic resonance imaging
  • Perfusion imaging
  • Prostate Imaging and Reporting Data System