Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Background

Although several studies have been reported on evaluating the performance of Gaussian and different non-Gaussian diffusion models on prostate cancer, few studies have been reported on the comparison of different models on differential diagnosis for prostate cancer.

Purpose

To compare the utility of various metrics derived from monoexponential model (MEM), biexponential model (BEM), stretched-exponential model (SEM) based diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) and diffusion kurtosis imaging (DKI) in the differential diagnosis of prostate cancer.

Material and Methods

Thirty-three patients underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examination. Multi-b value and multi-direction DWIs were performed. In-bore MR-guided biopsy was performed. Apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), pure molecular diffusion (ADC_slow), pseudo-diffusion coefficient (ADC_fast), perfusion fraction (f), water molecular diffusion heterogeneity index (α), distributed diffusion coefficient (DDC), non-Gaussian diffusion coefficient (MD), and mean kurtosis (MK) values were calculated and compared between cancerous and non-cancerous groups. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed for all parameters and models.

Results

ADC, ADC_slow, DDC, and MD values were significantly lower while MK value was significantly higher in prostate cancer than those of prostatitis and benign prostatic hyperplasia. ADC, ADC_slow, DDC, MD, and MK could discriminate between tumor and non-tumorous lesions (area under the curve, 0.856, 0.835, 0.866, 0.918, and 0.937, respectively). MK was superior to ADC in the discrimination of prostate cancer. DKI was superior to MEM in the discrimination of prostate cancer.

Conclusions

Parameters derived from both Gaussian and non-Gaussian models could characterize prostate cancer. DKI may be advantageous than DWI for detection of prostate cancer.

Keywords

Monoexponential model biexponential model stretched-exponential model diffusion kurtosis prostate cancer

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Torre

Bray

Siegel

et al.

Global cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin 2015; 65: 87–108.

Hodge

McNeal

Terris

et al.

Random systematic versus directed ultrasound guided transrectal core biopsies of the prostate. J Urol 1989; 142: 71–74. discussion 74–75.

Babaian

Toi

Kamoi

et al.

A comparative analysis of sextant and an extended 11-core multisite directed biopsy strategy. J Urol 2000; 163: 152–157.

Kobayashi

Kitamura

Mizukami

et al.

Diffusion-weighted imaging for prostate cancer localization: comparison of apparent diffusion coefficient values in cancerous and non-cancerous tissues, and the Gleason score of the radical prostatectomy specimens. Japanese J Urol 2013; 104: 489–495.

Tan

Wei

Johnson

et al.

Diffusion-weighted MRI in the detection of prostate cancer: meta-analysis. Am J Roentgenol 2012; 199: 822–829.

Jie

Rongbo

Ping

. The value of diffusion-weighted imaging in the detection of prostate cancer: a meta-analysis. Eur Radiol 2014; 24: 1929–1941.

Hernandez-Arguello

Quiceno

Pascual

et al.

Index lesion characterization by (11)C-Choline PET/CT and apparent diffusion coefficient parameters at 3 Tesla MRI in primary prostate carcinoma. Prostate 2016; 76: 3–12.

Weinreb

Barentsz

Choyke

et al.

PI-RADS Prostate Imaging - Reporting and Data System: 2015, Version 2. Eur Urol 2016; 69: 16–40.

Kuru

Roethke

Stieltjes

et al.

Intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) diffusion imaging in prostate cancer - what does it add?

J Comput Assist Tomogr 2014; 38: 558–564.

10.

Liu

Zhou

Peng

et al.

Comparison of stretched-exponential and monoexponential model diffusion-weighted imaging in prostate cancer and normal tissues. J Magn Reson Imaging 2015; 42: 1078–1085.

11.

Tamura

Shinmoto

Soga

et al.

Diffusion kurtosis imaging study of prostate cancer: preliminary findings. J Magn Reson Imaging 2014; 40: 723–729.

12.

Bai

Lin

Tian

et al.

Grading of gliomas by using monoexponential, biexponential, and stretched exponential diffusion-weighted MR imaging and diffusion kurtosis MR imaging. Radiology 2016; 278: 496–504.

13.

Valerio

Zini

Fierro

et al.

3T multiparametric MRI of the prostate: Does intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion imaging have a role in the detection and stratification of prostate cancer in the peripheral zone?

Eur J Radiol 2016; 85: 790–794.

14.

Pang

Turkbey

Bernardo

et al.

Intravoxel incoherent motion MR imaging for prostate cancer: an evaluation of perfusion fraction and diffusion coefficient derived from different b-value combinations. Magn Reson Med 2013; 69: 553–562.

15.

Shinmoto

Tamura

Soga

et al.

An intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion-weighted imaging study of prostate cancer. Am J Roentgenol 2012; 199: W496–500.

16.

Verma

Sarkar

Young

et al.

Evaluation of the impact of computed high b-value diffusion-weighted imaging on prostate cancer detection. Abdom Radiol 2016; 41: 934–945.

17.

Suo

Chen

et al.

Non-Gaussian water diffusion kurtosis imaging of prostate cancer. Magn Reson Imaging 2014; 32: 421–427.

18.

Quentin

Pentang

Schimmoller

et al.

Feasibility of diffusional kurtosis tensor imaging in prostate MRI for the assessment of prostate cancer: preliminary results. Magn Reson Imaging 2014; 32: 880–885.

19.

Rosenkrantz

Sigmund

Johnson

et al.

Prostate cancer: feasibility and preliminary experience of a diffusional kurtosis model for detection and assessment of aggressiveness of peripheral zone cancer. Radiology 2012; 264: 126–135.

20.

Dopfert

Lemke

Weidner

et al.

Investigation of prostate cancer using diffusion-weighted intravoxel incoherent motion imaging. Magn Reson Imaging 2011; 29: 1053–1058.

21.

Nagel

Schouten

Hambrock

et al.

Differentiation of prostatitis and prostate cancer by using diffusion-weighted MR imaging and MR-guided biopsy at 3 T. Radiology 2013; 267: 164–172.

22.

DeLong

Clarke-Pearson

. Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics 1988; 44: 837–845.

23.

Jung

Donati

Vargas

et al.

Transition zone prostate cancer: incremental value of diffusion-weighted endorectal MR imaging in tumor detection and assessment of aggressiveness. Radiology 2013; 269: 493–503.

24.

Vargas

Akin

Franiel

et al.

Diffusion-weighted endorectal MR imaging at 3 T for prostate cancer: tumor detection and assessment of aggressiveness. Radiology 2011; 259: 775–784.

25.

Le Bihan

Breton

Lallemand

et al.

MR imaging of intravoxel incoherent motions: application to diffusion and perfusion in neurologic disorders. Radiology 1986; 161: 401–407.

26.

Le Bihan

. Intravoxel incoherent motion perfusion MR imaging: a wake-up call. Radiology 2008; 249: 748–752.

27.

Kwee

Galban

Tsien

et al.

Comparison of apparent diffusion coefficients and distributed diffusion coefficients in high-grade gliomas. J Magn Reson Imaging 2010; 31: 531–537.

28.

Bennett

Hyde

Schmainda

. Water diffusion heterogeneity index in the human brain is insensitive to the orientation of applied magnetic field gradients. Magn Reson Med 2006; 56: 235–239.

29.

Vargas

Lawrence

Mazaheri

et al.

Updates in advanced diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging techniques in the evaluation of prostate cancer. World J Radiol 2015; 7: 184–188.

30.

Rosenkrantz

Prabhu

Sigmund

et al.

Utility of diffusional kurtosis imaging as a marker of adverse pathologic outcomes among prostate cancer active surveillance candidates undergoing radical prostatectomy. Am J Roentgenol 2013; 201: 840–846.

31.

Jensen

Ramani

et al.

Three-dimensional characterization of non-gaussian water diffusion in humans using diffusion kurtosis imaging. NMR Biomed 2006; 19: 236–247.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.16 MB

A comparative study of Gaussian and non-Gaussian diffusion models for differential diagnosis of prostate cancer with in-bore transrectal MR-guided biopsy as a pathological reference

Abstract

Background

Purpose

Material and Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material