There is still little research about histogram analysis of diffusion kurtosis imaging (DKI) using in prostate cancer at present.
Purpose
To verify the utility of histogram analysis of DKI model in detection and assessment of aggressiveness of prostate cancer, compared with monoexponential model (MEM).
Material and Methods
Twenty-three patients were enrolled in this study. For DKI model and MEM, the Dapp, Kapp, and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) were obtained by using single-shot echo-planar imaging sequence. The pathologies were confirmed by in-bore magnetic resonance (MR)-guided biopsy. Regions of interest (ROI) were drawn manually in the position where biopsy needle was put. The mean values and histogram parameters in cancer and noncancerous foci were compared using independent-samples T test. Receiver operating characteristic curves were used to investigate the diagnostic efficiency. Spearman’s test was used to evaluate the correlation of parameters and Gleason scores.
Results
The mean, 10th, 25th, 50th, 75th, and 90th percentiles of ADC and Dapp were significantly lower in prostate cancer than non-cancerous foci (P < 0.001). The mean, 50th, 75th, and 90th percentiles of Kapp were significantly higher in prostate cancer (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference between the AUCs of two models (0.971 vs. 0.963, P > 0.05). With the increasing Gleason scores, the 10th ADC decreased (ρ = −0.583, P = 0.018), but the 90th Kapp increased (ρ = 0.642, P = 0.007).
Conclusion
Histogram analysis of DKI model is feasible for diagnosing and grading prostate cancer, but it has no significant advantage over MEM.
BrayFFerlayJSoerjomataramI, et al.
Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin2018;
68:394–424.
2.
HectorsSJSemaanSSongC, et al.
Advanced diffusion-weighted imaging modeling for prostate cancer characterization: correlation with quantitative histopathologic tumor tissue composition - a hypothesis-generating study. Radiology2018;
286:918–928.
3.
VosEKKobusTLitjensGJ, et al.
Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for discriminating low-grade from high-grade prostate cancer. Invest Radiol2015;
50:490–497.
4.
JohnsonLMTurkbeyBFiggWD, et al.
Multiparametric MRI in prostate cancer management. Nat Rev Clin Oncol2014;
11:346–353.
5.
YakarDDebatsOABomersJG, et al.
Predictive value of MRI in the localization, staging, volume estimation, assessment of aggressiveness, and guidance of radiotherapy and biopsies in prostate cancer. J Magn Reson Imaging2012;
35:20–31.
6.
OtoAKayhanAJiangY, et al.
Prostate cancer: differentiation of central gland cancer from benign prostatic hyperplasia by using diffusion-weighted and dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology2010;
257:715–723.
7.
JensenJHHelpernJARamaniA, et al.
Diffusional kurtosis imaging: the quantification of non-gaussian water diffusion by means of magnetic resonance imaging. Magn Reson Med2005;
53:1432–1440.
8.
MaurerMHHeverhagenJT.Diffusion weighted imaging of the prostate-principles, application, and advances. Transl Androl Urol2017;
6:490–498.
9.
TamuraCShinmotoHSogaS, et al.
Diffusion kurtosis imaging study of prostate cancer: preliminary findings. J Magn Reson Imaging2014;
40:723–729.
10.
SuoSChenXWuL, et al.
Non-Gaussian water diffusion kurtosis imaging of prostate cancer. Magn Reson Imaging2014;
32:421–427.
11.
RoethkeMCKuderTAKuruTH, et al.
Evaluation of diffusion kurtosis imaging versus standard diffusion imaging for detection and grading of peripheral zone prostate cancer. Invest Radiol2015;
50:483–489.
12.
Li C, Chen M, Wan B, et al. 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. Acta Radiol 2018;59:1395–1402.
13.
ShengRFJinKPYangL, et al.
Histogram analysis of diffusion kurtosis magnetic resonance imaging for diagnosis of hepatic fibrosis. Korean J Radiol2018;
19:916–922.
14.
LangerDLvan der KwastTHEvansAJ, et al.
Intermixed normal tissue within prostate cancer: effect on MR imaging measurements of apparent diffusion coefficient and T2-sparse versus dense cancers. Radiology2008;
249:900–908.
15.
LuZHJiLBZhaoWL, et al.
Differentiating transition zone cancers from benign prostatic hyperplasia by histogram analysis of apparent diffusion coefficient maps with standard and ultrahigh b-value diffusion-weighted MR imaging. J Comput Assist Tomogr2019;
43:235–241.
16.
DonatiOFMazaheriYAfaqA, et al.
Prostate cancer aggressiveness: assessment with whole-lesion histogram analysis of the apparent diffusion coefficient. Radiology2014;
271:143–152.
17.
XiaohangLBingniZLiangpingZ, et al.
Differentiation of prostate cancer and stromal hyperplasia in the transition zone with histogram analysis of the apparent diffusion coefficient. Acta Radiol2017;
58:1528–1534.
18.
LiuWLiuXHTangW, et al.
Histogram analysis of stretched-exponential and monoexponential diffusion-weighted imaging models for distinguishing low and intermediate/high Gleason scores in prostate carcinoma. J Magn Reson Imaging2018;
48:491–498.
19.
XieHWuG.Application of diffusion kurtosis imaging and histogram analysis for assessing preoperative stages of rectal cancer. Gastroenterol Res Pract2018;
2018:9786932.
20.
QiXXShiDFRenSX, et al.
Histogram analysis of diffusion kurtosis imaging derived maps may distinguish between low and high grade gliomas before surgery. Eur Radiol2018;
28:1748–1755.
21.
HempelJMSchittenhelmJBrendleC, et al.
Histogram analysis of diffusion kurtosis imaging estimates for in vivo assessment of 2016 WHO glioma grades: a cross-sectional observational study. Eur J Radiol2017;
95:202–211.
22.
CuiYYangXDuX, et al.
Whole-tumour diffusion kurtosis MR imaging histogram analysis of rectal adenocarcinoma: correlation with clinical pathologic prognostic factors. Eur Radiol2018;
28:1485–1494.
23.
WangQLiHYanX, et al.
Histogram analysis of diffusion kurtosis magnetic resonance imaging in differentiation of pathologic Gleason grade of prostate cancer. Urol Oncol Semin Orig Investig2015;
33:337.e15–337.e24.
24.
WangXTuNQinT, et al.
Diffusion kurtosis imaging combined with DWI at 3-T MRI for detection and assessment of aggressiveness of prostate cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol2018;
211:797–804.
25.
BarrettTMcLeanMPriestAN, et al.
Diagnostic evaluation of magnetization transfer and diffusion kurtosis imaging for prostate cancer detection in a re-biopsy population. Eur Radiol2018;
28:3141–3150.
26.
RosenkrantzABSigmundEEJohnsonG, et al.
Prostate cancer: feasibility and preliminary experience of a diffusional kurtosis model for detection and assessment of aggressiveness of peripheral zone cancer. Radiology2012;
264:126–135.
27.
RosenkrantzABPadhaniARChenevertTL, et al.
Body diffusion kurtosis imaging: basic principles, applications, and considerations for clinical practice. J Magn Reson Imaging2015;
42:1190–1202.
28.
LawrenceEMWarrenAYPriestAN, et al.
Evaluating prostate cancer using fractional tissue composition of radical prostatectomy specimens and pre-operative diffusional kurtosis magnetic resonance imaging. PLoS One2016;
11:e0159652.
29.
Le BihanD.Apparent diffusion coefficient and beyond: what diffusion MR imaging can tell us about tissue structure. Radiology2013;
268:318–322.
30.
OguraAHatanoIOsakabeK, et al.
Importance of Fractional b Value for Calculating Apparent Diffusion Coefficient in DWI. AJR Am J Roentgenol2016;
207:1239–1243.
31.
WuCJWangQLiH, et al.
DWI-associated entire-tumor histogram analysis for the differentiation of low-grade prostate cancer from intermediate-high-grade prostate cancer. Abdom Imaging2015;
40:3214–3221.
32.
WooSChoJYKimSY, et al.
Histogram analysis of apparent diffusion coefficient map of diffusion-weighted MRI in endometrial cancer: a preliminary correlation study with histological grade. Acta Radiol2014;
55:1270–1277.
33.
KimHSSuhCHKimN, et al.
Histogram analysis of intravoxel incoherent motion for differentiating recurrent tumor from treatment effect in patients with glioblastoma: initial clinical experience. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol2014;
35:490–497.
34.
ZhangYDWangQWuCJ, et al.
The histogram analysis of diffusion-weighted intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) imaging for differentiating the gleason grade of prostate cancer. Eur Radiol2015;
25:994–1004.
35.
KyriaziSCollinsDJMessiouC, et al.
Metastatic ovarian and primary peritoneal cancer: assessing chemotherapy response with diffusion-weighted MR imaging–value of histogram analysis of apparent diffusion coefficients. Radiology2011;
261:182–192.
36.
HeijminkSWvan MoerkerkHKiemeneyLA, et al.
A comparison of the diagnostic performance of systematic versus ultrasound-guided biopsies of prostate cancer. Eur Radiol2006;
16:927–938.
37.
QuentinMPentangGSchimmöllerL, et al.
Feasibility of diffusional kurtosis tensor imaging in prostate MRI for the assessment of prostate cancer: preliminary results. Magn Reson Imaging2014;
32:880–885.
