Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Apparent diffusion coefficient value as a biomarker reflecting morphological and biological features of prostate cancer

  • Urology - Original Paper
  • Published:
International Urology and Nephrology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To assess whether there is an association between the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) value and the pathological characteristics of prostate cancer.

Methods

The study cohort consisted of 29 consecutive patients with prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy. All patients underwent diffusion-weighted MRI before the prostate biopsy. In 42 tumor foci, the associations of the ADC values with the clinicopathological characteristics and Ki-67 labeling index (LI) were analyzed.

Results

High-grade cancers (Gleason score [GS] ≥ 4 + 3), larger cancers (maximum diameter (MD) ≥ 16 mm), and highly proliferating cancers (Ki-67 LI ≥ 4.43 %) had significantly lower ADC values, respectively (P < .001, P = .008, and P = .044, respectively). There was no significant difference in ADC value according to age, prostate-specific antigen, presence of extra-prostatic extension, and intra-tumoral stroma proportion. Multivariate analysis showed that GS, Ki-67 LI, and MD had independent and significant correlations with ADC value (P < .001, P = .006, and P = .002, respectively). Low ADC tumors (<0.52 × 10−3 mm2/s) are likely to be high-grade cancer foci compared with high ADC tumors (relative risk: 65.2). The sensitivity and specificity of the ADC value to predict high-grade cancer foci are 81.8 and 93.5 %, respectively.

Conclusions

A low ADC value reflects the morphological and biological features of prostate cancer. Analyzing the ADC value may make it possible to more precisely predict the cancer aggressiveness of each focus before treatment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ahmed HU, Hindley RG, Dickinson L, Freeman A, Kirkham AP, Sahu M, Scott R, Allen C, Van der Meulen J, Emberton M (2012) Focal therapy for localised unifocal and multifocal prostate cancer: a prospective development study. Lancet Oncol 13(6):622–632. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(12)70121-3

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Smith DW, Stoimenova D, Eid K, Barqawi A (2012) The role of targeted focal therapy in the management of low-risk prostate cancer: update on current challenges. Prostate Cancer 2012:587139. doi:10.1155/2012/587139

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Matsuoka Y, Numao N, Saito K, Tanaka H, Kumagai J, Yoshida S, Koga F, Masuda H, Kawakami S, Fujii Y, Kihara K (2012) Combination of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging and extended prostate biopsy predicts lobes without significant cancer: application in patient selection for hemiablative focal therapy. Eur Urol. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2012.10.010

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Numao N, Yoshida S, Komai Y, Ishii C, Kagawa M, Kijima T, Yokoyama M, Ishioka J, Matsuoka Y, Koga F, Saito K, Masuda H, Fujii Y, Kawakami S, Kihara K (2013) Usefulness of prebiopsy multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and clinical variables to reduce initial prostate biopsy in men with suspected clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2013.02.3197

    Google Scholar 

  5. Tan CH, Wang J, Kundra V (2011) Diffusion weighted imaging in prostate cancer. Eur Radiol 21(3):593–603. doi:10.1007/s00330-010-1960-y

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Koh DM, Collins DJ (2007) Diffusion-weighted MRI in the body: applications and challenges in oncology. AJR Am J Roentgenol 188(6):1622–1635. doi:10.2214/AJR.06.1403

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Wu LM, Xu JR, Ye YQ, Lu Q, Hu JN (2012) The clinical value of diffusion-weighted imaging in combination with T2-weighted imaging in diagnosing prostate carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 199(1):103–110. doi:10.2214/AJR.11.7634

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Hambrock T, Somford DM, Huisman HJ, van Oort IM, Witjes JA, Hulsbergen-van de Kaa CA, Scheenen T, Barentsz JO (2011) Relationship between apparent diffusion coefficients at 3.0-T MR imaging and Gleason grade in peripheral zone prostate cancer. Radiology 259(2):453–461. doi:10.1148/radiol.11091409

  9. Kitajima K, Takahashi S, Ueno Y, Miyake H, Fujisawa M, Kawakami F, Sugimura K (2013) Do apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values obtained using high b-values with a 3-T MRI correlate better than a transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided biopsy with true Gleason scores obtained from radical prostatectomy specimens for patients with prostate cancer? Eur J Radiol 82(8):1219–1226. doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2013.02.021

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Padhani AR, Liu G, Koh DM, Chenevert TL, Thoeny HC, Takahara T, Dzik-Jurasz A, Ross BD, Van Cauteren M, Collins D, Hammoud DA, Rustin GJ, Taouli B, Choyke PL (2009) Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging as a cancer biomarker: consensus and recommendations. Neoplasia 11(2):102–125

    CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Oto A, Yang C, Kayhan A, Tretiakova M, Antic T, Schmid-Tannwald C, Eggener S, Karczmar GS, Stadler WM (2011) Diffusion-weighted and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI of prostate cancer: correlation of quantitative MR parameters with Gleason score and tumor angiogenesis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 197(6):1382–1390. doi:10.2214/AJR.11.6861

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Woodfield CA, Tung GA, Grand DJ, Pezzullo JA, Machan JT, Renzulli JF 2nd (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. AJR Am J Roentgenol 194(4):W316–W322. doi:10.2214/AJR.09.2651

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kobayashi S, Koga F, Kajino K, Yoshita S, Ishii C, Tanaka H, Saito K, Masuda H, Fujii Y, Yamada T, Kihara K (2013) Apparent diffusion coefficient value reflects invasive and proliferative potential of bladder cancer. J Magn Reson Imaging. doi:10.1002/jmri.24148

  14. Yoshida S, Kobayashi S, Koga F, Ishioka J, Ishii C, Tanaka H, Nakanishi Y, Matsuoka Y, Numao N, Saito K, Masuda H, Fujii Y, Kihara K (2013) Apparent diffusion coefficient as a prognostic biomarker of upper urinary tract cancer: a preliminary report. Eur Radiol. doi:10.1007/s00330-013-2805-2

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Zelhof B, Pickles M, Liney G, Gibbs P, Rodrigues G, Kraus S, Turnbull L (2009) Correlation of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance data with cellularity in prostate cancer. BJU Int 103(7):883–888. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2008.08130.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kasivisvanathan V, Dufour R, Moore CM, Ahmed HU, Abd-Alazeez M, Charman SC, Freeman A, Allen C, Kirkham A, van der Meulen J, Emberton M (2013) Transperineal magnetic resonance image targeted prostate biopsy versus transperineal template prostate biopsy in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. J Urol 189(3):860–866. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2012.10.009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Moore CM, Robertson NL, Arsanious N, Middleton T, Villers A, Klotz L, Taneja SS, Emberton M (2013) Image-guided prostate biopsy using magnetic resonance imaging-derived targets: a systematic review. Eur Urol 63(1):125–140. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2012.06.004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Higano S, Yun X, Kumabe T, Watanabe M, Mugikura S, Umetsu A, Sato A, Yamada T, Takahashi S (2006) Malignant astrocytic tumors: clinical importance of apparent diffusion coefficient in prediction of grade and prognosis. Radiology 241(3):839–846. doi:10.1148/radiol.2413051276

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Kang Y, Choi SH, Kim YJ, Kim KG, Sohn CH, Kim JH, Yun TJ, Chang KH (2011) Gliomas: histogram analysis of apparent diffusion coefficient maps with standard- or high-b-value diffusion-weighted MR imaging-correlation with tumor grade. Radiology 261(3):882–890. doi:10.1148/radiol.11110686

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Wieduwilt MJ, Valles F, Issa S, Behler CM, Hwang J, McDermott M, Treseler P, O’Brien J, Shuman MA, Cha S, Damon LE, Rubenstein JL (2012) Immunochemotherapy with intensive consolidation for primary CNS lymphoma: a pilot study and prognostic assessment by diffusion-weighted MRI. Clin Cancer Res 18(4):1146–1155. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-11-0625

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Kobayashi S, Koga F, Yoshida S, Masuda H, Ishii C, Tanaka H, Komai Y, Yokoyama M, Saito K, Fujii Y, Kawakami S, Kihara K (2011) Diagnostic performance of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in bladder cancer: potential utility of apparent diffusion coefficient values as a biomarker to predict clinical aggressiveness. Eur Radiol 21(10):2178–2186. doi:10.1007/s00330-011-2174-7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Yamamoto S, Yonese J, Kawakami S, Ohkubo Y, Tatokoro M, Komai Y, Takeshita H, Ishikawa Y, Fukui I (2007) Preoperative serum testosterone level as an independent predictor of treatment failure following radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 52(3):696–701. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2007.03.052

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Yoshida S, Koga F, Kobayashi S, Ishii C, Tanaka H, Komai Y, Saito K, Masuda H, Fujii Y, Kawakami S, Kihara K (2012) Role of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in predicting sensitivity to chemoradiotherapy in muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 83(1):e21–e27. doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2011.11.065

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Yoshida S, Masuda H, Ishii C, Tanaka H, Fujii Y, Kawakami S, Kihara K (2011) Usefulness of diffusion-weighted MRI in diagnosis of upper urinary tract cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 196(1):110–116. doi:10.2214/AJR.10.4632

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Graduate School, Tokyo Medical and Dental University, 1-5-45 Yushima, Bunkyo-Ku, Tokyo, 113-8519, Japan

    Hyeyeol Bae, Soichiro Yoshida, Yoh Matsuoka, Miyako Oya, Takayuki Nakayama, Hideki Takeshita, Toshiki Kijima, Junichiro Ishioka, Noboru Numao, Fumitaka Koga, Kazutaka Saito, Yasuhisa Fujii & Kazunori Kihara

  2. Department of Pathology, Tokyo Medical and Dental University Graduate School, Tokyo, Japan

    Hiroshi Nakajima, Eisaku Ito & Takumi Akashi

  3. Department of Radiology, Ochanomizu Surugadai Clinic, Tokyo, Japan

    Hiroshi Tanaka

Authors
  1. Hyeyeol Bae
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Soichiro Yoshida
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yoh Matsuoka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hiroshi Nakajima
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Eisaku Ito
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Hiroshi Tanaka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Miyako Oya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Takayuki Nakayama
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Hideki Takeshita
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Toshiki Kijima
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Junichiro Ishioka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Noboru Numao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Fumitaka Koga
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Kazutaka Saito
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Takumi Akashi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  16. Yasuhisa Fujii
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  17. Kazunori Kihara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Soichiro Yoshida.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bae, H., Yoshida, S., Matsuoka, Y. et al. Apparent diffusion coefficient value as a biomarker reflecting morphological and biological features of prostate cancer. Int Urol Nephrol 46, 555–561 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-013-0557-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-013-0557-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation