Narrative review-focal therapy: are we ready to change the prostate cancer treatment paradigm?

Diffusion kurtosis imaging and standard diffusion imaging in the magnetic resonance imaging assessment of prostate cancer

Background and Objective

In recent years, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has shown excellent results in the study of the prostate gland. MRI has indeed shown to be advantageous in the prostate cancer (PCa) detection, as in guiding targeting biopsy, improving its diagnostic yield. Although current acquisition protocols provide for multiparametric acquisition, recent evidence has shown that biparametric protocols can be non-inferior in PCa detection. Diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) sequence, in particular, plays a key role, particularly in the peripheral zone which accounts for the larger part of the prostate. High b-values are generally recommended, although with the possibility of obtaining non-Gaussian diffusion effects, which requires a more sophisticated model for the analysis, namely through the diffusion kurtosis imaging (DKI). Purpose of this narrative review was to analyze the current applications and clinical evidence regarding the use of DKI with a main focus on PCa detection, also in comparison with DWI.

Methods

This narrative review synthesized the findings of literature retrieved from main researches, narrative and systematic reviews, and meta-analyses obtained from PubMed.

Key Content and Findings

DKI analyses the non-Gaussian water diffusivity and describe the effect of signal intensity decay related to high b-value through two main metrics (Dapp and Kapp). Differently from DWI-apparent diffusion coefficient (DWI-ADC) which reflects only water restriction outside of cells, DKI metrics are supposed to represent also the direct interaction of water molecules with cell membranes and intracellular compounds. This review describes current evidence on ADC and DKI metrics in clinical imaging, and finally collect the results derived from the main articles focused on DWI and DKI models in detecting PCa.

Conclusions

DKI advantages, compared to conventional ADC analysis, still remain controversial. Wider application and greater technical knowledge of DKI, however, may help in proving its intrinsic validity in the field of oncology and therefore in the study of clinically significant PCa. Finally, a deep understanding of DKI is important for radiologists to better understand what Kapp and Dapp mean in the context of different cancer and how these metrics may vary specifically in PCa imaging.