Cargando…

Diagnostic evaluation of magnetization transfer and diffusion kurtosis imaging for prostate cancer detection in a re-biopsy population

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate diffusion kurtosis imaging (DKI) and magnetisation transfer imaging (MTI) compared to standard MRI for prostate cancer assessment in a re-biopsy population. METHODS: Thirty-patients were imaged at 3 T including DKI (K(app) and D(app)) with b-values 150/450/800/1150/1500 s/mm(2...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Barrett, Tristan, McLean, Mary, Priest, Andrew N., Lawrence, Edward M., Patterson, Andrew J., Koo, Brendan C., Patterson, Ilse, Warren, Anne Y., Doble, Andrew, Gnanapragasam, Vincent J., Kastner, Christof, Gallagher, Ferdia A.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6028858/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29222677
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-5169-1
_version_ 1783336855106748416
author Barrett, Tristan
McLean, Mary
Priest, Andrew N.
Lawrence, Edward M.
Patterson, Andrew J.
Koo, Brendan C.
Patterson, Ilse
Warren, Anne Y.
Doble, Andrew
Gnanapragasam, Vincent J.
Kastner, Christof
Gallagher, Ferdia A.
author_facet Barrett, Tristan
McLean, Mary
Priest, Andrew N.
Lawrence, Edward M.
Patterson, Andrew J.
Koo, Brendan C.
Patterson, Ilse
Warren, Anne Y.
Doble, Andrew
Gnanapragasam, Vincent J.
Kastner, Christof
Gallagher, Ferdia A.
author_sort Barrett, Tristan
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To evaluate diffusion kurtosis imaging (DKI) and magnetisation transfer imaging (MTI) compared to standard MRI for prostate cancer assessment in a re-biopsy population. METHODS: Thirty-patients were imaged at 3 T including DKI (K(app) and D(app)) with b-values 150/450/800/1150/1500 s/mm(2) and MTI performed with and without MT saturation. Patients underwent transperineal biopsy based on prospectively defined MRI targets. Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) analyses assessed the parameters and Wilcoxon-signed ranked test assessed relationships between metrics. RESULTS: Twenty patients had ≥ 1 core positive for cancer in a total of 26 MRI targets (Gleason 3+3 in 8, 3+4 in 12, ≥ 4+3 in 6): 13 peripheral (PZ) and 13 transition zone (TZ). The apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) and D(app) were significantly lower and the K(app) and MT ratio (MTR) significantly higher in tumour versus benign tissue (all p ≤ 0.005); ROC values 0.767-1.000. Normal TZ had: lower ADC and D(app) and higher K(app) and MTR compared to normal PZ. MTR showed a moderate correlation to K(app) (r = 0.570) and D(app) (r = -0.537) in normal tissue but a poor correlation in tumours. No parameter separated low-grade (Gleason 3+3) from high-grade (≥ 3+4) disease for either PZ (p = 0.414-0.825) or TZ (p = 0.148-0.825). CONCLUSION: ADC, D(app), K(app) and MTR all distinguished benign tissue from tumour, but none reliably differentiated low- from high-grade disease. KEY POINTS: • MTR was significantly higher in PZ and TZ tumours versus normal tissue • K (app) was significantly lower and D (app) higher for PZ and TZ tumours • There was no incremental value for DKI/MTI over mono-exponential ADC parameters • No parameter could consistently differentiate low-grade (Gleason 3+3) from high-grade (≥ 3+4) disease • Divergent MTR/DKI values in TZ tumours suggests they offer different functional information ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s00330-017-5169-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6028858
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-60288582018-07-23 Diagnostic evaluation of magnetization transfer and diffusion kurtosis imaging for prostate cancer detection in a re-biopsy population Barrett, Tristan McLean, Mary Priest, Andrew N. Lawrence, Edward M. Patterson, Andrew J. Koo, Brendan C. Patterson, Ilse Warren, Anne Y. Doble, Andrew Gnanapragasam, Vincent J. Kastner, Christof Gallagher, Ferdia A. Eur Radiol Urogenital OBJECTIVE: To evaluate diffusion kurtosis imaging (DKI) and magnetisation transfer imaging (MTI) compared to standard MRI for prostate cancer assessment in a re-biopsy population. METHODS: Thirty-patients were imaged at 3 T including DKI (K(app) and D(app)) with b-values 150/450/800/1150/1500 s/mm(2) and MTI performed with and without MT saturation. Patients underwent transperineal biopsy based on prospectively defined MRI targets. Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) analyses assessed the parameters and Wilcoxon-signed ranked test assessed relationships between metrics. RESULTS: Twenty patients had ≥ 1 core positive for cancer in a total of 26 MRI targets (Gleason 3+3 in 8, 3+4 in 12, ≥ 4+3 in 6): 13 peripheral (PZ) and 13 transition zone (TZ). The apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) and D(app) were significantly lower and the K(app) and MT ratio (MTR) significantly higher in tumour versus benign tissue (all p ≤ 0.005); ROC values 0.767-1.000. Normal TZ had: lower ADC and D(app) and higher K(app) and MTR compared to normal PZ. MTR showed a moderate correlation to K(app) (r = 0.570) and D(app) (r = -0.537) in normal tissue but a poor correlation in tumours. No parameter separated low-grade (Gleason 3+3) from high-grade (≥ 3+4) disease for either PZ (p = 0.414-0.825) or TZ (p = 0.148-0.825). CONCLUSION: ADC, D(app), K(app) and MTR all distinguished benign tissue from tumour, but none reliably differentiated low- from high-grade disease. KEY POINTS: • MTR was significantly higher in PZ and TZ tumours versus normal tissue • K (app) was significantly lower and D (app) higher for PZ and TZ tumours • There was no incremental value for DKI/MTI over mono-exponential ADC parameters • No parameter could consistently differentiate low-grade (Gleason 3+3) from high-grade (≥ 3+4) disease • Divergent MTR/DKI values in TZ tumours suggests they offer different functional information ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s00330-017-5169-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2017-12-08 2018 /pmc/articles/PMC6028858/ /pubmed/29222677 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-5169-1 Text en © The Author(s) 2017 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
spellingShingle Urogenital
Barrett, Tristan
McLean, Mary
Priest, Andrew N.
Lawrence, Edward M.
Patterson, Andrew J.
Koo, Brendan C.
Patterson, Ilse
Warren, Anne Y.
Doble, Andrew
Gnanapragasam, Vincent J.
Kastner, Christof
Gallagher, Ferdia A.
Diagnostic evaluation of magnetization transfer and diffusion kurtosis imaging for prostate cancer detection in a re-biopsy population
title Diagnostic evaluation of magnetization transfer and diffusion kurtosis imaging for prostate cancer detection in a re-biopsy population
title_full Diagnostic evaluation of magnetization transfer and diffusion kurtosis imaging for prostate cancer detection in a re-biopsy population
title_fullStr Diagnostic evaluation of magnetization transfer and diffusion kurtosis imaging for prostate cancer detection in a re-biopsy population
title_full_unstemmed Diagnostic evaluation of magnetization transfer and diffusion kurtosis imaging for prostate cancer detection in a re-biopsy population
title_short Diagnostic evaluation of magnetization transfer and diffusion kurtosis imaging for prostate cancer detection in a re-biopsy population
title_sort diagnostic evaluation of magnetization transfer and diffusion kurtosis imaging for prostate cancer detection in a re-biopsy population
topic Urogenital
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6028858/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29222677
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-5169-1
work_keys_str_mv AT barretttristan diagnosticevaluationofmagnetizationtransferanddiffusionkurtosisimagingforprostatecancerdetectioninarebiopsypopulation
AT mcleanmary diagnosticevaluationofmagnetizationtransferanddiffusionkurtosisimagingforprostatecancerdetectioninarebiopsypopulation
AT priestandrewn diagnosticevaluationofmagnetizationtransferanddiffusionkurtosisimagingforprostatecancerdetectioninarebiopsypopulation
AT lawrenceedwardm diagnosticevaluationofmagnetizationtransferanddiffusionkurtosisimagingforprostatecancerdetectioninarebiopsypopulation
AT pattersonandrewj diagnosticevaluationofmagnetizationtransferanddiffusionkurtosisimagingforprostatecancerdetectioninarebiopsypopulation
AT koobrendanc diagnosticevaluationofmagnetizationtransferanddiffusionkurtosisimagingforprostatecancerdetectioninarebiopsypopulation
AT pattersonilse diagnosticevaluationofmagnetizationtransferanddiffusionkurtosisimagingforprostatecancerdetectioninarebiopsypopulation
AT warrenanney diagnosticevaluationofmagnetizationtransferanddiffusionkurtosisimagingforprostatecancerdetectioninarebiopsypopulation
AT dobleandrew diagnosticevaluationofmagnetizationtransferanddiffusionkurtosisimagingforprostatecancerdetectioninarebiopsypopulation
AT gnanapragasamvincentj diagnosticevaluationofmagnetizationtransferanddiffusionkurtosisimagingforprostatecancerdetectioninarebiopsypopulation
AT kastnerchristof diagnosticevaluationofmagnetizationtransferanddiffusionkurtosisimagingforprostatecancerdetectioninarebiopsypopulation
AT gallagherferdiaa diagnosticevaluationofmagnetizationtransferanddiffusionkurtosisimagingforprostatecancerdetectioninarebiopsypopulation