Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Radiology. 2008 Feb;246(2):480-8. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2462070368.

Prostate cancer: identification with combined diffusion-weighted MR imaging and 3D 1H MR spectroscopic imaging--correlation with pathologic findings.

Author information

1
Department of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Ave, Room C-278, New York, NY 10021, USA. mazahery@mskcc.org

Abstract

PURPOSE:

To retrospectively measure the mean apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) with diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and the mean metabolic ratio (MET) with three-dimensional (3D) hydrogen 1 ((1)H) MR spectroscopic imaging in regions of interest (ROIs) drawn over benign and malignant peripheral zone (PZ) prostatic tissue and to assess ADC, MET, and combined ADC and MET for identifying malignant ROIs, with whole-mount histopathologic examination as the reference standard.

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

The institutional review board approved this HIPAA-compliant retrospective study and issued a waiver of informed consent. From among 61 consecutive patients with prostate cancer, 38 men (median age, 61 years; range, 42-72 years) who underwent 1.5-T endorectal MR imaging before radical prostatectomy and who fulfilled all inclusion criteria of no prior hormonal or radiation treatment and at least one PZ lesion (volume, >0.1 cm(3)) at whole-mount pathologic examination were included. ADC maps were generated from diffusion-weighted MR imaging data, and MET maps of (choline plus polyamine plus creatine)/citrate were calculated from 3D (1)H MR spectroscopic imaging data. ROIs in the PZ identified by matching pathologic slides with T2-weighted images were overlaid on MET and ADC maps. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs) were used to evaluate accuracy.

RESULTS:

The mean ADC +/- standard deviation, (1.39 +/- 0.23) x 10(-3) mm(2)/sec, and mean MET (0.92 +/- 0.32) for malignant ROIs differed significantly from the mean ADC, (1.69 +/- 0.24) x 10(-3) mm(2)/sec, and mean MET (0.73 +/- 0.18) for benign ROIs (P < .001 for both). In distinguishing malignant ROIs, combined ADC and MET (AUC = 0.85) performed significantly better than MET alone (AUC = 0.74; P = .005) and was also better than ADC alone (AUC = 0.81), although the difference was not statistically significant (P = .09).

CONCLUSION:

The combination of ADC and MET performs significantly better than MET for differentiating between benign and malignant ROIs in the PZ.

PMID:
18227542
DOI:
10.1148/radiol.2462070368
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Atypon
Loading ...
Support Center