Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Prostate MRI: diffusion-weighted imaging at 1.5T correlates better with prostatectomy Gleason grades than TRUS-guided biopsies in peripheral zone tumours

  • Oncology
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

To investigate the usefulness of Apparent Diffusion Coefficients (ADC) in predicting prostatectomy Gleason Grades (pGG) and Scores (GS), compared with ultrasound-guided biopsy Gleason Grades (bGG).

Methods

Twenty-four patients with biopsy-proven prostate cancer were included in the study. Diffusion-weighted images were obtained using 1.5-T MR with a pelvic phased-array coil. Median ADC values (b0,500,1000 s/mm²) were measured at the most suspicious areas in the peripheral zone. The relationship between ADC values and pGG or GS was assessed using Pearson’s coefficient. The relationship between bGG and pGG or GS was also evaluated. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was performed to assess the performance of each method on a qualitative level.

Results

A significant negative correlation was found between mean ADCs of suspicious lesions and their pGG (r = −0.55; p < 0.01) and GS (r = −0.63; p < 0.01). No significant correlation was found between bGG and pGG (r = 0.042; p > 0.05) or GS (r = 0.048; p > 0.05). ROC analysis revealed a discriminatory performance of AUC = 0.82 for ADC and AUC = 0.46 for bGG in discerning low-grade from intermediate/high-grade lesions.

Conclusions

The ADC values of suspicious areas in the peripheral zone perform better than bGG in the correlation with prostate cancer aggressiveness, although with considerable intra-subject heterogeneity.

Key Points

• Prostate cancer aggressiveness is probably underestimated and undersampled by routine ultrasound-guided biopsies.

• Diffusion-weighted MR images show good linear correlation with prostate cancer aggressiveness.

• DWI information may be used to improve risk-assessment in prostate cancer.

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
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Society AC (2009) Cancer facts and figures 2009. Available at http://www.cancer.org/Research/CancerFactsFigures/cancer-facts-figures-2009. Accessed September 1, 2011

  2. Bill-Axelson A, Holmberg L, Ruutu M et al (2005) Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 352:1977

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. D'Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB et al (1998) Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. Jama 280:969

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Partin AW, Mangold LA, Lamm DM, Walsh PC, Epstein JI, Pearson JD (2001) Contemporary update of prostate cancer staging nomograms (Partin Tables) for the new millennium. Urology 58:843–848

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. D’Amico AV, Moul J, Carroll PR, Sun L, Lubeck D, Chen MH (2003) Cancer-specific mortality after surgery or radiation for patients with clinically localized prostate cancer managed during the prostate-specific antigen era. J Clin Oncol 21:2163

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Stephenson AJ, Scardino PT, Eastham JA et al (2005) Postoperative nomogram predicting the 10-year probability of prostate cancer recurrence after radical prostatectomy. J Clin Oncol 23:7005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Gleason DF, Mellinger GT (1974) the Veterans administration cooperative urological research group: prediction of prognosis for prostatic adenocarcinoma by combined histological grading and clinical staging(ed)^(eds), pp 58–64

  8. Epstein J, Allsbrook W Jr, Amin M, Egevad L (2005) The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 29:1228

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Blute M, Bergstralh E, Iocca A, Scherer B, Zincke H (2001) Use of Gleason score, prostate specific antigen, seminal vesicle and margin status to predict biochemical failure after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 165:119

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Egevad L, Granfors T, Karlberg L, Bergh A, Stattin P (2002) Percent Gleason grade 4/5 as prognostic factor in prostate cancer diagnosed at transurethral resection. J Urol 168:509–513

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Cohen M, Hanley R, Kurteva T et al (2008) Comparing the Gleason prostate biopsy and Gleason prostatectomy grading system: the Lahey Clinic Medical Center experience and an international meta-analysis. Eur Urol 54:371–381

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kvåle R, Møller B, Wahlqvist R et al (2009) Concordance between Gleason scores of needle biopsies and radical prostatectomy specimens: a population-based study. BJU Int 103:1647–1654

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Rajinikanth A, Manoharan M, Soloway CT, Civantos FJ, Soloway MS (2008) Trends in Gleason score: concordance between biopsy and prostatectomy over 15 years. Urology 72:177–182

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Stav K, Merald H, Leibovici D, Lindner A, Zisman A (2007) Does prostate biopsy Gleason score accurately express the biologic features of prostate cancer?(ed)^(eds). Elsevier, pp 383–386

  15. Neil JJ (1997) Measurement of water motion (apparent diffusion) in biological systems. Concepts Magn Reson 9:385–401

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Pagani E, Bizzi A, Di Salle F, De Stefano N, Filippi M (2008) Basic concepts of advanced MRI techniques. Neurol Sci 29:290–295

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Qayyum A (2009) Diffusion-weighted imaging in the abdomen and pelvis: concepts and applications. Radiographics 29:1797–1810

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Guo Y, Cai YQ, Cai ZL et al (2002) Differentiation of clinically benign and malignant breast lesions using diffusion weighted imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 16(2):172–178

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Pereira FPA, Martins G, Figueiredo E et al (2009) Assessment of breast lesions with diffusion-weighted MRI: comparing the use of different b values. Am J Roentgenol 193:1030

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Sugahara T, Korogi Y, Kochi M et al (1999) Usefulness of diffusion-weighted MRI with echo-planar technique in the evaluation of cellularity in gliomas. J Magn Reson Imaging 9:53–60

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. de Souza NM, Reinsberg SA, Scurr ED, Brewster JM, Payne GS (2007) Magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer: the value of apparent diffusion coefficients for identifying malignant nodules. Br J Radiol 80:90–95. doi:10.1259/bjr/24232319

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Hosseinzadeh K, Schwarz SD (2004) Endorectal diffusion weighted imaging in prostate cancer to differentiate malignant and benign peripheral zone tissue. J Magn Reson Imaging 20:654–661

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. 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 16:196–200

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Pickles MD, Gibbs P, Sreenivas M, Turnbull LW (2006) Diffusion weighted imaging of normal and malignant prostate tissue at 3.0T. J Magn Reson Imaging 23:130–134

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Sato C, Naganawa S, Nakamura T et al (2005) Differentiation of noncancerous tissue and cancer lesions by apparent diffusion coefficient values in transition and peripheral zones of the prostate. J Magn Reson Imaging 21:258–262

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Tanimoto A, Nakashima J, Kohno H, Shinmoto H, Kuribayashi S (2007) Prostate cancer screening: the clinical value of diffusion weighted imaging and dynamic MR imaging in combination with T2 weighted imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 25:146–152

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Xu J, Humphrey PA, Kibel AS et al (2009) Magnetic resonance diffusion characteristics of histologically defined prostate cancer in humans. Magn Reson Med 61:842–850

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Padhani AR, Liu G, Mu-Koh D et al (2009) Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging as a cancer biomarker: consensus and recommendations. Neoplasia (New York, NY) 11:102

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. DeSouza N, Riches S, Vanas N et al (2008) Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging: a potential non-invasive marker of tumour aggressiveness in localized prostate cancer. Clin Radiol 63:774–782

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Itou Y, Nakanishi K, Narumi Y, Nishizawa Y, Tsukuma H (2011) Clinical utility of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values in patients with prostate cancer: can ADC values contribute to assess the aggressiveness of prostate cancer? J Magn Reson Imaging 33:167–172

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Tamada T, Sone T, Jo Y et al (2008) 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 28:720–726

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Turkbey B, Shah VP, Pang Y et al (2011) Is apparent diffusion coefficient associated with clinical risk scores for prostate cancers that are visible on 3-T MR images? Radiology 258:488–495

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Verma S, Rajesh A, Morales H et al (2011) Assessment of aggressiveness of prostate cancer: correlation of apparent diffusion coefficient with histologic grade after radical prostatectomy. Am J Roentgenol 196:374

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Woodfield CA, Tung GA, Grand DJ, Pezzullo JA, Machan JT, Renzulli JF (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:W316

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Epstein JI, Srigley J, Grignon D, Humphrey P (2007) Recommendations for the reporting of prostate carcinoma. Hum Pathol 38:1305–1309

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Graser A, Heuck A, Sommer B et al (2007) Per-sextant localization and staging of prostate cancer: correlation of imaging findings with whole-mount step section histopathology. Am J Roentgenol 188:84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Chenevert TL, Sundgren PC, Ross BD (2006) Diffusion imaging: insight to cell status and cytoarchitecture. Neuroimaging Clin N Am 16:619

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. San Francisco I, DeWOLF W, Rosen S, Upton M, Olumi A (2003) Extended prostate needle biopsy improves concordance of Gleason grading between prostate needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy. J Urol 169:136–140

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Smith JJA, Scardino PT, Resnick MI, Hernandez AD, Rose SC, Egger MJ (1997) Transrectal ultrasound versus digital rectal examination for the staging of carcinoma of the prostate: results of a prospective, multi-institutional trial. J Urol 157:902–906. doi:10.1016/s0022-5347(01)65079-1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Norberg M, Egevad L, Holmberg L, Sparén P, Norlén BJ, Busch C (1997) The sextant protocol for ultrasound-guided core biopsies of the prostate underestimates the presence of cancer. Urology 50:562–566. doi:10.1016/s0090-4295(97)00306-3

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Xu S, Kruecker J, Turkbey B et al (2008) Real-time MRI-TRUS fusion for guidance of targeted prostate biopsies. Comput Aided Surg 13:255–264

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Hambrock T, Futterer JJ, Huisman HJ et al (2008) Thirty-two-channel coil 3T magnetic resonance-guided biopsies of prostate tumor suspicious regions identified on multimodality 3T magnetic resonance imaging: technique and feasibility. Invest Radiol 43:686–694

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Hambrock T, Somford DM, Hoeks C et al (2010) Magnetic resonance imaging guided prostate biopsy in men with repeat negative biopsies and increased prostate specific antigen. J Urol 183(2):520–527. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2009.10.022

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Wang L, Hricak H, Kattan MW et al (2007) Prediction of seminal vesicle invasion in prostate cancer: incremental value of adding endorectal mr imaging to the kattan nomogram1. Radiology 242:182–188

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. CDPI Clinics—Abdominal and Pelvic Imaging, Rio de Janeiro Federal University, Av. Das Americas, 4666, sl 325, centro medico, 22640102, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil

    Leonardo Kayat Bittencourt

  2. Department of Radiology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

    Jelle O. Barentsz

  3. Department of Urology, Rio de Janeiro Federal University, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

    Luiz Carlos Duarte de Miranda

  4. Department of Radiology, CDPI and Multi-Imagem Clinics, Rio de Janeiro Federal University, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

    Emerson Leandro Gasparetto

Authors
  1. Leonardo Kayat Bittencourt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jelle O. Barentsz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Luiz Carlos Duarte de Miranda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Emerson Leandro Gasparetto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Leonardo Kayat Bittencourt.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bittencourt, L.K., Barentsz, J.O., de Miranda, L.C.D. et al. Prostate MRI: diffusion-weighted imaging at 1.5T correlates better with prostatectomy Gleason grades than TRUS-guided biopsies in peripheral zone tumours. Eur Radiol 22, 468–475 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-011-2269-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-011-2269-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation