Diagnostic performance of ADC and ADCratio in MRI-based prostate cancer assessment: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To identify factors influencing the diagnostic performance of the quantitative imaging biomarkers ADC and ADCratio in prostate cancer (PCa) detection.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted in Embase, Medline and Web of Science, for studies evaluating ADC values and ADCratio for PCa diagnosis, using the same patient cohorts and using histopathological references as ground truth. Pooled sensitivities, specificities, summary ROC curves and AUCs were calculated from constructed contingency data tables. Diagnostic performance (AUC) was quantitatively pooled using a bivariate mixed effects model. For identifying influencing factors, subgroup analysis, publication bias and heterogeneity assessment were investigated.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies, involving 1038 patients and 1441 lesions, were included. For ADC, the pooled sensitivity and specificity was 80% (95% CI: 74-85%) and 78% (95% CI: 70-85%), respectively. For ADCratio pooled sensitivity and specificity was 80% (95% CI: 74-84%) and 80% (95% CI: 71-87%). Summary ROC analysis revealed AUCs of 0.86 (95% CI: 0.83-0.89) and 0.86 (95% CI: 0.83-0.89), respectively. Meta-regression showed heterogeneity between both imaging biomarkers. Subgroup analysis showed that ADCratio improved diagnostic performance in comparison to ADC when including both peripheral and transitional zone lesions (AUC: 0.87 [95% CI: 0.84-0.90] and 0.82 [95% CI: 0.79-0.85], respectively).

CONCLUSION

Both ADC and ADCratio imaging biomarkers showed good and comparable diagnostic performance in PCa diagnosis. However, ADCratio shows better diagnostic performance than ADC in diagnosing transition zone cancers.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT

In quantitative MRI-based PCa diagnosis, the imaging biomarker ADCratio is useful in challenging MRI readings of lesions. Understanding the performance of quantitative imaging biomarkers better can aid diagnostic MRI protocols, enhancing the precision of PCa assessments.

KEY POINTS

MRI diffusion-weighted imaging-based ADC and ADCratio have comparable diagnostic performance in PCa assessment. In contrast to ADC, the ADCratio improves diagnostic performance, when assessing whole gland lesions. Compared to ADCratio, the ADC demonstrates enhanced diagnostic performance when evaluating peripheral zone lesions.

Same-day repeatability and Between-Sequence reproducibility of Mean ADC in PI-RADS lesions

PURPOSE

This study aimed to assess repeatability after repositioning (inter-scan), intra-rater, inter-rater and inter-sequence variability of mean apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) measurements in MRI-detected prostate lesions.

METHOD

Forty-three patients with suspicion for prostate cancer were included and received a clinical prostate bi-/multiparametric MRI examination with repeat scans of the T2-weighted and two DWI-weighted sequences (ssEPI and rsEPI). Two raters (R1 and R2) performed single-slice, 2D regions of interest (2D-ROIs) and 3D-segmentation-ROIs (3D-ROIs). Mean bias, corresponding limits of agreement (LoA), mean absolute difference, within-subject coefficient of variation (CoV) and repeatability/reproducibility coefficient (RC/RDC) were calculated. Bradley & Blackwood test was used for variance comparison. Linear mixed models (LMM) were used to account for multiple lesions per patient.

RESULTS

Inter-scan repeatability, intra-rater and inter-sequence reproducibility analysis of ADC showed no significant bias. 3D-ROIs demonstrated significantly less variability than 2D-ROIs (p < 0.01). Inter-rater comparison demonstrated small significant systematic bias of 57 × 10-6 mm2/s for 3D-ROIs (p < 0.001). Intra-rater RC, with the lowest variation, was 145 and 189 × 10-6 mm2/s for 3D- and 2D-ROIs, respectively. For 3D-ROIs of ssEPI, RCs and RDCs were 190-198 × 10-6 mm2/s for inter-scan, inter-rater and inter-sequence variation. No significant differences were found for inter-scan, inter-rater and inter-sequence variability.

CONCLUSIONS

In a single-scanner setting, single-slice ADC measurements showed considerable variation, which may be lowered using 3D-ROIs. For 3D-ROIs, we propose a cut-off of ∼ 200 × 10-6 mm2/s for differences introduced by repositioning, rater or sequence effects. The results suggest that follow-up measurements should be possible by different raters or sequences.

PI-RADS: Where Next?

Prostate MRI plays an important role in the clinical management of localized prostate cancer, mainly assisting in biopsy decisions and guiding biopsy procedures. The Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) has been available to radiologists since 2012, with the most up-to-date and actively used version being PI-RADS version 2.1. This review article discusses the current use of PI-RADS, including its limitations and controversies, and summarizes research that aims to improve future iterations of this system.

The impact of the apparent diffusion coefficient for the early prediction of the treatment response after definitive radiotherapy in prostate cancer patients

PURPOSE

We assessed early changes in apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) and serum prostate specific antigen (PSA) values after definitive radiotherapy (RT) without androgen deprivation treatment in low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer (PC) patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The clinical data and ADC parameters of 229 PC patients were retrospectively evaluated. Pre-treatment and post-treatment serum PSA and primary tumor ADC values were calculated. Post-treatment DW-MRI was performed median 4.1 months after completion of definitive RT. The prognostic factors predicting freedom from biochemical failure (FFBF) and progression-free survival (PFS) were analyzed using univariable and multivariable analyses.

RESULTS

With a median follow-up time of 80.8 months, the 5-year FFBF and PFS rates were 95.9% and 89.3%, respectively. Eleven patients (4.8%) had PSA relapse, with a median of 34.4 months after the completion of RT. A statistically significant difference in post-treatment ADC values was noted between patients with and without recurrence (0.94 ± 0.07 vs. 1.10 ± 0.20 × 10^-3 mm²/sec; p < 0.001). Patients with a Gleason score (GS) of 6 and low-risk disease had significantly higher post-treatment tumor ADC and PSA levels than patients with a GS of 7 and intermediate-risk disease. The 5-year FFBF rate in patients with tumor ADC ≤ 0.96 × 10^-3 mm²/sec was significantly lower than patients with tumor ADC > 0.96 × 10^-3 mm²/sec (85.5% vs. 100; p < 0.001). In the multivariable analysis, a lower ADC value, GS 4 + 3 and intermediate-risk disease were independent predictors of worse FFBF. In the multivariate analysis, a lower post-treatment ADC value and a GS of 4+3 were significant prognostic factors for a lower PFS.

CONCLUSION

These findings suggest that the post-treatment tumor ADC value could be used for early treatment response evaluation after definitive RT in PC patients.

Repeatability and Reproducibility Assessment of the Apparent Diffusion Coefficient in the Prostate: A Trial of the ECOG-ACRIN Research Group (ACRIN 6701)

BACKGROUND

Uncertainty regarding the reproducibility of the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) hampers the use of quantitative diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) in evaluation of the prostate with magnetic resonance imaging MRI. The quantitative imaging biomarkers alliance (QIBA) profile for quantitative DWI claims a within-subject coefficient of variation (wCV) for prostate lesion ADC of 0.17. Improved understanding of ADC reproducibility would aid the use of quantitative diffusion in prostate MRI evaluation.

PURPOSE

Evaluation of the repeatability (same-day) and reproducibility (multi-day) of whole-prostate and focal-lesion ADC assessment in a multi-site setting.

STUDY TYPE

Prospective multi-institutional.

SUBJECTS

Twenty-nine males, ages 53 to 80 (median 63) years, following diagnosis of prostate cancer, 10 with focal lesions.

FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE

3T, single-shot spin-echo diffusion-weighted echo-planar sequence with four b-values.

ASSESSMENT

Sites qualified for the study using an ice-water phantom with known ADC. Readers performed DWI analyses at visit 1 ("V1") and visit 2 ("V2," 2-14 days after V1), where V2 comprised scans before ("V2pre") and after ("V2post") a "coffee-break" interval with subject removal and repositioning. A single reader segmented the whole prostate. Two readers separately placed region-of-interests for focal lesions.

STATISTICAL TESTS

Reproducibility and repeatability coefficients for whole prostate and focal lesions derived from median pixel ADC. We estimated the wCV and 95% confidence interval using a variance stabilizing transformation and assessed interreader reliability of focal lesion ADC using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).

RESULTS

The ADC biases from b0 -b600 and b0 -b800 phantom scans averaged 1.32% and 1.44%, respectively; mean b-value dependence was 0.188%. Repeatability and reproducibility of whole prostate median pixel ADC both yielded wCVs of 0.033 (N = 29). In 10 subjects with an evaluable focal lesion, the individual reader wCVs were 0.148 and 0.074 (repeatability) and 0.137 and 0.078 (reproducibility). All time points demonstrated good to excellent interreader reliability for focal lesion ADC (ICCV1  = 0.89; ICCV2pre  = 0.76; ICCV2post  = 0.94).

DATA CONCLUSION

This study met the QIBA claim for prostate ADC. Test-retest repeatability and multi-day reproducibility were largely equivalent. Interreader reliability for focal lesion ADC was high across time points.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

1 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 2 TOC CATEGORY: Pelvis.

Impact of measurement method on interobserver variability of apparent diffusion coefficient of lesions in prostate MRI

Purpose

To compare the inter-observer variability of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values of prostate lesions measured by 2D-region of interest (ROI) with and without specific measurement instruction.

Methods

Forty lesions in 40 patients who underwent prostate MR followed by targeted prostate biopsy were evaluated. A multi-reader study (10 readers) was performed to assess the agreement of ADC values between 2D-ROI without specific instruction and 2D-ROI with specific instruction to place a 9-pixel size 2D-ROI covering the lowest ADC area. The computer script generated multiple overlapping 9-pixel 2D-ROIs within a 3D-ROI encompassing the entire lesion placed by a single reader. The lowest mean ADC values from each 2D-small-ROI were used as reference values. Inter-observer agreement was assessed using the Bland-Altman plot. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was assessed between ADC values measured by 10 readers and the computer-calculated reference values.

Results

Ten lesions were benign, 6 were Gleason score 6 prostate carcinoma (PCa), and 24 were clinically significant PCa. The mean±SD ADC reference value by 9-pixel-ROI was 733 ± 186 (10⁻⁶ mm²/s). The 95% limits of agreement of ADC values among readers were better with specific instruction (±112) than those without (±205). ICC between reader-measured ADC values and computer-calculated reference values ranged from 0.736–0.949 with specific instruction and 0.349–0.919 without specific instruction.

Conclusion

Interobserver agreement of ADC values can be improved by indicating a measurement method (use of a specific ROI size covering the lowest ADC area).

Do the variations in ROI placement technique have influence for prostate ADC measurements?

Background

Prostate apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values calculated from diffusion-weighted imaging have been used for evaluating prostate cancer (PCa) aggressiveness. However, the way of measuring ADC values has varied depending on the study.

Purpose

To investigate inter- and intra-reader variability and diagnostic performance of three kinds of shaped 2D regions of interests (ROIs) for tumor ADC measurements in PCa.

Material and Methods

Seventy-four patients with PCa undergoing 3-T MRI before surgery were included. Histologic findings from radical prostatectomy specimens were reviewed to define each patient’s dominant tumor. Three readers independently measured the tumor ADCs using three different ROI methods: freehand, large-circle, and small-circles ROIs. Readers repeated measurements after 3 weeks. Bland-Altman analysis was performed to evaluate the inter- and intra-reader variability. Receiver Operating Characteristic analysis was used for assessment of tumor aggressiveness for PCa.

Results

For intra-reader and inter-reader variability, the mean coefficient of repeatability for freehand ROIs, large-circle ROIs, and small-circles ROIs were as follows: 13.7%, 12.4%, and 11.5%; 9.4%, 9.7%, and 9.5%. For differentiating Gleason score (GS) = 3 + 3 from GS ≥ 3 + 4 tumors, the area under the curves were 0.90 for freehand ROIs, 0.89 for large-circle ROIs, and 0.94 small-circles ROIs ( p = 0.31).

Conclusion

The variations in ROI method did not have a major influence on intra-reader or inter-reader reproducibility or diagnostic performance for prostate ADC measurements.

Serial changes in tumour measurements and apparent diffusion coefficients in prostate cancer patients on active surveillance with and without histopathological progression

OBJECTIVE

To analyse serial changes in MRI-derived tumour measurements and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values in prostate cancer (PCa) patients on active surveillance (AS) with and without histopathological disease progression.

METHODS

This study included AS patients with biopsy-proven PCa with a minimum of two consecutive MR examinations and at least one repeat targeted biopsy. Tumour volumes, largest axial two-dimensional (2D) surface areas, and maximum diameters were measured on T2 weighted images (T2WI). ADC values were derived from the whole lesions, 2D areas, and small-volume regions of interest (ROIs) where tumours were most conspicuous. Areas under the ROC curve (AUCs) were calculated for combinations of T2WI and ADC parameters with optimal specificity and sensitivity.

RESULTS

60 patients (30 progressors and 30 non-progressors) were included. In progressors, T2WI-derived tumour volume, 2D surface area, and maximum tumour diameter had a median increase of +99.5%,+55.3%, and +21.7% compared to +29.2%,+8.1%, and +6.9% in non-progressors (p < 0.005 for all). Follow-up whole-volume and small-volume ROIs ADC values were significantly reduced in progressors (-11.7% and -9.5%) compared to non-progressors (-6.1% and -1.6%) (p < 0.05 for both). The combined AUC of a relative increase in maximum tumour diameter by 20% and reduction in small-volume ADC by 10% was 0.67.

CONCLUSION

AS patients show significant differences in tumour measurements and ADC values between those with and without histopathological disease progression.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE

This paper proposes specific clinical cut-offs for T2WI-derived maximum tumour diameter (+20%) and small-volume ADC (-10%) to predict histopathological PCa progression on AS and supplement subjective serial MRI assessment.

A New Framework for Precise Identification of Prostatic Adenocarcinoma

Prostate cancer, which is also known as prostatic adenocarcinoma, is an unconstrained growth of epithelial cells in the prostate and has become one of the leading causes of cancer-related death worldwide. The survival of patients with prostate cancer relies on detection at an early, treatable stage. In this paper, we introduce a new comprehensive framework to precisely differentiate between malignant and benign prostate cancer. This framework proposes a noninvasive computer-aided diagnosis system that integrates two imaging modalities of MR (diffusion-weighted (DW) and T2-weighted (T2W)). For the first time, it utilizes the combination of functional features represented by apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) maps estimated from DW-MRI for the whole prostate in combination with texture features with its first- and second-order representations, extracted from T2W-MRIs of the whole prostate, and shape features represented by spherical harmonics constructed for the lesion inside the prostate and integrated with PSA screening results. The dataset presented in the paper includes 80 biopsy confirmed patients, with a mean age of 65.7 years (43 benign prostatic hyperplasia, 37 prostatic carcinomas). Experiments were conducted using different well-known machine learning approaches including support vector machines (SVM), random forests (RF), decision trees (DT), and linear discriminant analysis (LDA) classification models to study the impact of different feature sets that lead to better identification of prostatic adenocarcinoma. Using a leave-one-out cross-validation approach, the diagnostic results obtained using the SVM classification model along with the combined feature set after applying feature selection (88.75% accuracy, 81.08% sensitivity, 95.35% specificity, and 0.8821 AUC) indicated that the system’s performance, after integrating and reducing different types of feature sets, obtained an enhanced diagnostic performance compared with each individual feature set and other machine learning classifiers. In addition, the developed diagnostic system provided consistent diagnostic performance using 10-fold and 5-fold cross-validation approaches, which confirms the reliability, generalization ability, and robustness of the developed system.

Better lesion conspicuity translates into improved prostate cancer detection: comparison of non-parallel-transmission-zoomed-DWI with conventional-DWI

PURPOSE

To compare advanced non-parallel transmission zoomed diffusion-weighted imaging (nonPTX zoom-DWI) to conventional DWI (conv-DWI) for the assessment of prostate cancer (PCa).

METHODS

This retrospective study included 98 patients who underwent conv-DWI, nonPTX zoom-DWI, and T2-weighted imaging of the prostate. The image qualities of the two DWI sets, including the distortion of the prostate and the existence of artifacts, were evaluated. To compare the overall PCa and clinically important PCa (ciPCa) detection ability between the sets, lesions were scored using the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) version 2. Apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values of the lesions were also measured and compared. The Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare continuous variables, and the χ² test was used to compare categorical variables. Two-sided P values of < 0.05 were considered significant.

RESULTS

Non-PTX zoom-DWI yielded significantly better image quality and image analysis reproducibility than conv-DWI (all P < 0.001). Compared with conv-ADC, nonPTX zoom-ADC showed slightly better detection performance for overall PCa (AUC: 0.827 vs. 0.797; P = 0.55) and ciPCa (AUC: 0.822 vs. 0.749; P = 0.58). At a PI-RADS score of 4 as the cutoff value for PCa prediction, nonPTX zoom-DWI showed significantly higher diagnostic efficiency for overall PCa detection (sensitivity: 87.9% vs. 72.4%; specificity: 87.5% vs. 77.5%; both P < 0.05) and ciPCa detection (sensitivity: 86.3% vs. 74.5%; specificity: 72.3% vs. 63.8%; both P ≤ 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Non-PTX zoom-DWI yields better image quality and higher PCa detection performance than Conv-DWI.

Comparison of different ROI analysis methods for liver lesion characterization with simplified intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM)

This study investigated the impact of different ROI placement and analysis methods on the diagnostic performance of simplified IVIM-DWI for differentiating liver lesions. 1.5/3.0-T DWI data from a respiratory-gated MRI sequence (b = 0, 50, 250, 800 s/mm²) were analyzed in patients with malignant (n = 74/54) and benign (n = 35/19) lesions. Apparent diffusion coefficient ADC = ADC(0,800) and IVIM parameters D₁' = ADC(50,800), D₂' = ADC(250,800), f₁' = f(0,50,800), f₂' = f(0,250,800), and D*' = D*(0,50,250,800) were calculated voxel-wise. For each lesion, a representative 2D-ROI, a 3D-ROI whole lesion, and a 3D-ROI from "good" slices were placed, including and excluding centrally deviating areas (CDA) if present, and analyzed with various histogram metrics. The diagnostic performance of 2D- and 3D-ROIs was not significantly different; e.g. AUC (ADC/D₁'/f₁') were 0.958/0.902/0.622 for 2D- and 0.942/0.892/0.712 for whole lesion 3D-ROIs excluding CDA at 1.5 T (p > 0.05). For 2D- and 3D-ROIs, AUC (ADC/D₁'/D₂') were significantly higher, when CDA were excluded. With CDA included, AUC (ADC/D₁'/D₂'/f₁'/D*') improved when low percentiles were used instead of averages, and was then comparable to the results of average ROI analysis excluding CDA. For lesion differentiation the use of a representative 2D-ROI is sufficient. CDA should be excluded from ROIs by hand or automatically using low percentiles of diffusion coefficients.

Quantitative diffusion-weighted imaging and dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging for assessment of tumor aggressiveness in prostate cancer at 3T

PURPOSE

To compare diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) and dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging (DCE-MRI) for characterization of prostate cancer (PC).

METHODS

104 PC patients who underwent prostate multiparametric MRI at 3T including DWI and DCE-MRI before MRI-guided biopsy or radical prostatectomy. Apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) with histogram analysis (mean, 0-25th percentile, skewness, and kurtosis), intravoxel incoherent motion model including D and f; stretched exponential model including distributed diffusion coefficient (DDC) and a; and permeability parameters including K^trans, K_ep, and V_e were obtained from a region of interest placed on the dominant tumor of each patient.

RESULTS

ADC_mean, ADC_0-25, D, DDC, and V_e were significantly lower and K_ep was significantly higher in GS ≥ 3 + 4 tumors (n = 89) than in GS = 3 + 3 tumors (n = 15), and also in GS ≥ 4 + 3 tumors (n = 57) than in GS ≤ 3 + 4 tumors (n = 47) (P < 0.001 to P = 0.040). f was significantly lower in GS ≥ 4 + 3 tumors than in GS ≤ 3 + 4 tumors (P = 0.022), but there was no significant difference between GS = 3 + 3 tumors and GS ≥ 3 + 4 tumors, or between the remaining metrics in both comparisons. In metrics with area under the curve (AUC) >0.80, there was a significant difference in AUC between ADC_0-25 and D, and DDC for separating GS ≤ 3 + 4 tumors from GS ≥ 4 + 3 tumors (P = 0.040 and P = 0.022, respectively). There were no significant differences between metrics with AUC > 0.80 for separating GS = 3 + 3 tumors from GS ≥ 3 + 4 tumors. ADC_0-25 had the highest correlation with Gleason grade (ρ = -0.625, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

DWI and DCE-MRI showed no apparent clinical superiority of non-Gaussian models or permeability MRI over the mono-exponential model for assessment of tumor aggressiveness in PC.

Ultra-High-b-Value Kurtosis Imaging for Noninvasive Tissue Characterization of Ovarian Lesions

Background MRI with contrast material enhancement is the imaging modality of choice to evaluate sonographically indeterminate adnexal masses. The role of diffusion-weighted MRI, however, remains controversial. Purpose To evaluate the diagnostic performance of ultra-high-b-value diffusion kurtosis MRI in discriminating benign and malignant ovarian lesions. Materials and Methods This prospective cohort study evaluated consecutive women with sonographically indeterminate adnexal masses between November 2016 and December 2018. MRI at 3.0 T was performed, including diffusion-weighted MRI (b values of 0-2000 sec/mm²). Lesions were segmented on b of 1500 sec/mm² by two readers in consensus and an additional independent reader by using full-lesion segmentations on a single transversal slice. Apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) calculation and kurtosis fitting were performed. Differences in ADC, kurtosis-derived ADC (D_app), and apparent kurtosis coefficient (K_app) between malignant and benign lesions were assessed by using a logistic mixed model. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for ADC, D_app, and K_app to discriminate malignant from benign lesions was calculated, as was specificity at a sensitivity level of 100%. Results from two independent reads were compared. Histopathologic analysis served as the reference standard. Results A total of 79 ovarian lesions in 58 women (mean age ± standard deviation, 48 years ± 14) were evaluated. Sixty-two (78%) lesions showed benign and 17 (22%) lesions showed malignant histologic findings. ADC and D_app were lower and K_app was higher in malignant lesions: median ADC, D_app, and K_app were 0.74 µm²/msec (range, 0.52-1.44 µm²/msec), 0.98 µm²/msec (range, 0.63-2.12 µm²/msec), and 1.01 (range, 0.69-1.30) for malignant lesions, and 1.13 µm²/msec (range, 0.35-2.63 µm²/msec), 1.45 µm²/msec (range, 0.44-3.34 µm²/msec), and 0.65 (range, 0.44-1.43) for benign lesions (P values of .01, .02, < .001, respectively). AUC for K_app of 0.85 (95% confidence interval: 0.77, 0.94) was higher than was AUC from ADC of 0.78 (95% confidence interval: 0.67, 0.89; P = .047). Conclusion Diffusion-weighted MRI by using quantitative kurtosis variables is superior to apparent diffusion coefficient values in discriminating benign and malignant ovarian lesions and might be of future help in clinical practice, especially in patients with contraindication to contrast media application. © RSNA, 2020 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Utility of Restriction Spectrum Imaging Among Men Undergoing First-Time Biopsy for Suspected Prostate Cancer

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this article is to evaluate restriction spectrum imaging (RSI) in men undergoing MRI-ultrasound fusion biopsy for suspected prostate cancer (PCa) and to compare the performance of RSI with that of conventional DWI. MATERIALS AND METHODS. One hundred ninety-eight biopsy-naïve men enrolled in a concurrent prospective clinical trial evaluating MRI-targeted prostate biopsy underwent multiparametric MRI with RSI. Clinical and imaging features were compared between men with and without clinically significant (CS) PCa (MRI-ultrasound fusion biopsy Gleason score ≥ 3 + 4). RSI z score and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) were correlated, and their diagnostic performances were compared. RESULTS. CS PCa was detected in 109 of 198 men (55%). Using predefined thresholds of ADC less than or equal to 1000 μm²/s and RSI z score greater than or equal to 3, sensitivity and specificity for CS PCa were 86% and 38%, respectively, for ADC and 61% and 70%, respectively, for RSI. In the transition zone (n = 69), the sensitivity and specificity were 94% and 17%, respectively, for ADC and 59% and 69%, respectively, for RSI. Among lesions with CS PCa, RSI z score and ADC were significantly inversely correlated in the peripheral zone (ρ = -0.4852; p < 0.01) but not the transition zone (ρ = -0.2412; p = 0.17). Overall diagnostic accuracies of RSI and DWI were 0.70 and 0.68, respectively (p = 0.74). CONCLUSION. RSI and DWI achieved equivalent diagnostic performance for PCa detection in a large population of men undergoing first-time prostate biopsy for suspected PCa, but RSI had superior specificity for transition zone lesions.

Repeatability of diffusion-weighted MRI of the prostate using whole lesion ADC values, skew and histogram analysis

PURPOSE

To investigate the repeatability of diffusion-weighted imaging parameter including ADC-derived histogram values in prostate cancer.

METHODS

10 patients with prostate cancer were prospectively recruited to a retest cohort. 3 T diffusion-weighted MRI of the prostate was acquired consecutively with patient getting off the scanner between studies. Prostatectomy-histopathology defined tumour regions-of-interest were outlined on ADC maps and diffusion-weighted metrics including histograms were calculated. The coefficient of reproducibility (CoR) and Bland-Altman plots were used to assess repeatability.

RESULTS

10th centile, 90th centile, and median ADC showed good repeatability with mean difference ranging from -0.005 to -0.025 × 103 mm2s-1, and CoR ranging from 0.271-0.294 × 103 mm2s-1 of scan 1 mean). Two measures of heterogeneity and simplified texture, IQR and mean local range, had only moderate repeatability. IQR had a mean difference of -0.032 × 103 mm2s-1 between scans with CoR 0.181 × 103 mm2s-1 (56% of scan 1 mean). Mean local range had a mean difference -0.008 × 103 mm2s-1 between scans (37% of scan 1 mean). Bland-Altman plots showed good repeatability for test and re-test analysis for median, percentile and mean range values. All ADC values had good reliability regardless of whether the tumour border was included in quantitative analysis. ADC histogram skew had poor repeatability, CoR 0.78 × 103 mm2s-1 (373% of scan 1 mean).

CONCLUSION

10th and 90th centile ADC demonstrated sufficient repeatability for clinical use. However, more advanced measures of heterogeneity such as histogram skew, IQR, or mean local range may be limited by their repeatability.