Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Amide proton transfer (APT) magnetic resonance imaging of prostate cancer: comparison with Gleason scores

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Magnetic Resonance Materials in Physics, Biology and Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

To evaluate the utility of amide proton transfer (APT) imaging in estimating the Gleason score (GS) of prostate cancer (Pca).

Materials and methods

Sixty-six biopsy-proven cancers were categorized into four groups according to the GS: GS-6 (3 + 3); GS-7 (3 + 4/4 + 3); GS-8 (4 + 4) and GS-9 (4 + 5/5 + 4). APT signal intensities (APT SIs) and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values of each GS group were compared by one-way analysis of variance with Tukey’s HSD post hoc test.

Results

The mean and standard deviation of the APT SIs (%) and ADC values (×10−3 mm2/s) were as follows: GS-6, 2.48 ± 0.59 and 1.16 ± 0.26; GS-7, 5.17 ± 0.66 and 0.92 ± 0.18; GS-8, 2.56 ± 0.85 and 0.86 ± 0.17; GS-9, 1.96 ± 0.75 and 0.85 ± 0.18, respectively. The APT SI of the GS-7 group was highest, and there were significant differences between the GS-6 and GS-7 groups and the GS-7 and GS-9 groups (p < 0.05). The ADC value of the GS-6 group was significantly higher than each value of the GS-7, GS-8, and GS-9 groups (p < 0.05), but no significant differences were obtained among the GS-7, GS-8, and GS-9 groups.

Conclusion

The mean APT SI in Pca with a GS of 7 was higher than that for the other GS groups.

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
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Damber JE, Aus G (2008) Prostate cancer. Lancet 371:1710–1721

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A (2012) Cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin 62:10–29

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Mohler JL, Kantoff PW, Armstrong AJ et al (2014) Prostate cancer, version 2.2014. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 12:686–718

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Epstein JI (2006) What’s new in prostate cancer disease assessment in 2006? Curr Opin Urol 16:146–151

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC, Jr, Amin MB, Egevad LL, Committee IG (2005) The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 29:1228–1242

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Gleason DF (1966) Classification of prostatic carcinomas. Cancer Chemother Rep 50:125–128

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Gleason DF, Mellinger GT (1974) Prediction of prognosis for prostatic adenocarcinoma by combined histological grading and clinical staging. J Urol 111:58–64

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 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 

  9. Kobus T, Vos PC, Hambrock T et al (2012) Prostate cancer aggressiveness: in vivo assessment of MR spectroscopy and diffusion-weighted imaging at 3 T. Radiology 265:457–467

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Vaché T, Bratan F, Mège-Lechevallier F, Roche S, Rabilloud M, Rouvière O (2014) Characterization of prostate lesions as benign or malignant at multiparametric MR imaging: comparison of three scoring systems in patients treated with radical prostatectomy. Radiology 272:446–455

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Vargas HA, Akin O, Franiel T et al (2011) Diffusion-weighted endorectal MR imaging at 3 T for prostate cancer: tumor detection and assessment of aggressiveness. Radiology 259:775–784

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. 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. AJR Am J Roentgenol 196:374–381

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Litjens GJ, Barentsz JO, Karssemeijer N, Huisman HJ (2015) Clinical evaluation of a computer-aided diagnosis system for determining cancer aggressiveness in prostate MRI. Eur Radiol 25:318–3199

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Zhang YD, Wang Q, Wu CJ et al (2015) The histogram analysis of diffusion-weighted intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) imaging for differentiating the Gleason grade of prostate cancer. Eur Radiol 25:994–1004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Zhou J, Blakeley JO, Hua J et al (2008) Practical data acquisition method for human brain tumor amide proton transfer (APT) imaging. Magn Reson Med 60:842–849

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Zhou J, Payen JF, Wilson DA, Traystman RJ, van Zijl PC (2003) Using the amide proton signals of intracellular proteins and peptides to detect pH effects in MRI. Nat Med 9:1085–1090

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Togao O, Yoshiura T, Keupp J et al (2014) Amide proton transfer imaging of adult diffuse gliomas: correlation with histopathological grades. Neuro Oncol 16:441–448

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Dula AN, Arlinghaus LR, Dortch RD et al (2013) Amide proton transfer imaging of the breast at 3 T: establishing reproducibility and possible feasibility assessing chemotherapy response. Magn Reson Med 70:216–224

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Jia G, Abaza R, Williams JD et al (2011) Amide proton transfer MR imaging of prostate cancer: a preliminary study. J Magn Reson Imaging 33:647–654

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Tamada T, Sone T, Jo Y et al (2008) Prostate cancer: relationships between postbiopsy hemorrhage and tumor detectability at MR diagnosis. Radiology 248:531–539

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Keupp J, Baltes C, Harver P, Van den Brink J (2011) Parallel RF Transmission based MRI Technique for Highly Sensitive Detection of Amide Proton Transfer in the Human Brain at 3. In: Proceedings of 19th Annual Meeting of International Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, Québec, p 710

  22. Agarwal HK, Keupp J, Bornardo M, Turkbey B, Choyke PL (2015) Saturation duration and power optimization for APT MRI of prostate cancer. In: Proceedings of 23rd Annual Meeting of International Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, Toronto, p 3851

  23. Nagarajan R, Margolis D, Raman S et al (2012) MR spectroscopic imaging and diffusion-weighted imaging of prostate cancer with Gleason scores. J Magn Reson Imaging 36:697–703

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Oto A, Yang C, Kayhan A et al (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 197:1382–1390

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. 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 

  26. 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  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Donati OF, Mazaheri Y, Afaq A et al (2014) Prostate cancer aggressiveness: assessment with whole-lesion histogram analysis of the apparent diffusion coefficient. Radiology 271:143–152

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Mazaheri Y, Shukla-Dave A, Hricak H et al (2008) Prostate cancer: identification with combined diffusion-weighted MR imaging and 3D 1H MR spectroscopic imaging—correlation with pathologic findings. Radiology 246:480–488

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Wang XZ, Wang B, Gao ZQ et al (2009) Diffusion-weighted imaging of prostate cancer: correlation between apparent diffusion coefficient values and tumor proliferation. J Magn Reson Imaging 29:1360–1366

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Langer DL, van der Kwast TH, Evans AJ et al (2010) Prostate tissue composition and MR measurements: investigating the relationships between ADC, T2, K(trans), v(e), and corresponding histologic features. Radiology 255:485–494

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Tan CH, Wang J, Kundra V (2011) Diffusion weighted imaging in prostate cancer. Eur Radiol 21:593–603

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Zelhof B, Pickles M, Liney G et al (2009) Correlation of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance data with cellularity in prostate cancer. BJU Int 103:883–888

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Humphrey PA (2004) Gleason grading and prognostic factors in carcinoma of the prostate. Mod Pathol 17:292–306

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Nguyen K, Sarkar A, Jain AK (2014) Prostate cancer grading: use of graph cut and spatial arrangement of nuclei. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 33:2254–2270

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Freedland SJ, Kane CJ, Amling CL et al (2007) Upgrading and downgrading of prostate needle biopsy specimens: risk factors and clinical implications. Urology 69:495–499

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Sakr WA, Tefilli MV, Grignon DJ et al (2000) Gleason score 7 prostate cancer: a heterogeneous entity? Correlation with pathologic parameters and disease-free survival. Urology 56:730–734

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C), JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 25461833.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology Informatics and Network, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, 3-1-1 Maidashi, Higashi-ku, Fukuoka, 8128582, Japan

    Yukihisa Takayama

  2. Department of Clinical Radiology, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, 3-1-1 Maidashi, Higashi-ku, Fukuoka, 8128582, Japan

    Akihiro Nishie, Osamu Togao, Yoshiki Asayama, Kousei Ishigami, Yasuhiro Ushijima, Daisuke Okamoto, Nobuhiro Fujita & Hiroshi Honda

  3. Department of Anatomic Pathology, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, 3-1-1 Maidashi, Higashi-ku, Fukuoka, 8128582, Japan

    Masaaki Sugimoto

  4. Department of Urology, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, 3-1-1 Maidashi, Higashi-ku, Fukuoka, 8128582, Japan

    Masaaki Sugimoto & Akira Yokomizo

  5. Philips Research, Roentgenstr. 24-26, 22335, Hamburg, Germany

    Jochen Keupp

Authors
  1. Yukihisa Takayama
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Akihiro Nishie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Masaaki Sugimoto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Osamu Togao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Yoshiki Asayama
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Kousei Ishigami
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Yasuhiro Ushijima
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Daisuke Okamoto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Nobuhiro Fujita
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Akira Yokomizo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Jochen Keupp
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Hiroshi Honda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Akihiro Nishie.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Jochen Keupp declares that he receives a salary from Philips Research. The other authors have no conflict of interest.

Ethical standards

This prospective study was approved by our institutional review board and complied with ethics committee standards. All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Takayama, Y., Nishie, A., Sugimoto, M. et al. Amide proton transfer (APT) magnetic resonance imaging of prostate cancer: comparison with Gleason scores. Magn Reson Mater Phy 29, 671–679 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10334-016-0537-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10334-016-0537-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation