ISSN 1004-4140
CN 11-3017/P
| Citation: |
ZHANG S B, ZHAO Y, LIU J, et al. Application Value of Normalized Apparent Diffusion Coefficient and Prostate-specific Antigen Density for Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Category 3 Lesions in the Prostate-specific Antigen Gray Zone[J]. CT Theory and Applications, 2024, 33(1): 63-70. DOI: 10.15953/j.ctta.2023.069. (in Chinese).
|
Objective: To investigate the application value of normalized apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values and prostate-specific antigen density (PSAD) in category 3 Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) version 2.1 lesions when the serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level is in the grey zone of 4～10 ng/mL. Methods: From January 2018 to June 2022, 58 patients with PI-RADS v2.1 scores of 3 and PSA values of 4~10 ng/mL were selected. According to the pathological results, the patients were divided into the PCa (20 cases) and non-PCa (38 cases) groups. The clinical data of the patients were collected, including age, PSA, prostate volume (PV), and PSAD (PSA/V) calculated by formula. Meanwhile, the ADC values of the lesion area and the normal tissue in the peripheral zone were measured on the ADC image, and the standardized apparent diffusion coefficient value was calculated, namely ADCn (ADC lesion/ADC peripheral zone). Statistical software was used to determine the statistical significance of the differences of ADCn and PSAD between the two groups. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to compare the diagnostic efficacy of the two for PCa in lesions with PI-RADS v2.1 score of 3. Results: Age and PSA did not differ significantly between the two groups. Compared to the non-PCa group, the PCa group showed lower ADCn (0.52 vs. 0.69) and higher PSAD (0.28 vs. 0.18). The area under the ROC curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity of ADCn and PSAD in the diagnosis of PCa were 0.849, 85.2%, and 81.6 % and 0.813, 85.0%, and 78.4%, respectively. For an optimal diagnostic threshold of 0.373, the AUC, sensitivity, and specificity of PCa were 0.962, 90.0%, and 89.5%, respectively. Conclusions: ADCn and PSAD can assist in PCa detection in lesions category 3 PI-RADS v2.1 lesions in the PSA gray area. The combination of ADCn and PSAD can significantly improve the diagnostic sensitivity and specificity.
| [1] |
TEOH J Y C, HIRAI H W, HO J M W, et al. Global incidence of prostate cancer in developing and developed countries with changing age structures[J]. PLoS One, 2019, 14(10): e0221775. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0221775
|
| [2] |
CHEN R, HUANG Y, CAI X, et al. Age-specific cutoff value for the application of percent free prostate-specific antigen (PSA) in Chinese men with serum PSA levels of 4.0~10.0 ng/ml[J]. PLoS One, 2015, 10(6): e0130308. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0130308
|
| [3] |
汪洋, 宦怡, 任静. 前列腺影像报告与数据系统2.1版(PI-RADS v2.1): 解读与比较[J]. 国际医学放射学杂志, 2019,42(6): 712−716.
WANG Y, HUAN Y, REN J. Interpretation of prostate imaging-reporting and data system version 2.1 (PI-RADS v2.1) and comparison with version 2.0[J]. International Journal of Medical Radiology, 2019, 42(6): 712−716. (in Chinese).
|
| [4] |
KASIVISVANATHAN V, RANNIKKO, A S, BORGHI M, et al. MRI-Targeted or standard biopsy for prostate-cancer diagnosis[J]. The New England Journal of Medicine, 2018, 378(19): 1767−1777. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1801993
|
| [5] |
KIM T J, LEE M S, HWANG S I, et al. Outcomes of magnetic resonance imaging fusion-targeted biopsy of prostate imaging reporting and data system 3 lesions[J]. World Journal of Urology, 2018, 37(8): 1581−1586.
|
| [6] |
BARRETT T, PRIEST A N, LAWRENCE E M, et al. Ratio of tumor to normal prostate tissue apparent diffusion coefficient as a method for quantifying DWI of the prostate[J]. American Journal of Roentgenology, 2015, 205(6): W585−W593. doi: 10.2214/AJR.15.14338
|
| [7] |
WEINREB J C, BARENTSZ J O, CHOYKE P L, et al. PI-RADS prostate imaging-reporting and data system: 2015, Version 2[J]. European Urology, 2016, 69(1): 16−40. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.08.052
|
| [8] |
TURKBEY B, ROSENKRANTZ A B, HAIDER M A, et al. Prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2.1: 2019 update of prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2[J]. European Urology, 2019, 76(3): 340−351. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.02.033
|
| [9] |
PADHANI A R, BARENTSZ J, VILLEIRS G, et al. PI-RADS steering committee: The PI-RADS multiparametric MRI and MRI-directed biopsy pathway[J]. Radiology, 2019, 292(2): 182946.
|
| [10] |
OSSES D F, ARSOV C, SCHIMMLLER L, et al. Equivocal PI-RADS three lesions on prostate magnetic resonance imaging: Risk stratification strategies to avoid MRI-Targeted biopsies[J]. Journal of Personalized Medicine, 2020, 10(4): 270. doi: 10.3390/jpm10040270
|
| [11] |
SCHLENKER B, APFELBECK M, ARMBRUSTER M, et al. Comparison of PIRADS 3 lesions with histopathological findings after MRI-fusion targeted biopsy of the prostate in a real world-setting[J]. Clinical Hemorheology and Microcirculation, 2019, 71(2): 165−170. doi: 10.3233/CH-189407
|
| [12] |
VSAB C, TSA D, YHAEF G, et al. False positive multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging phenotypes in the biopsy-nave prostate: Are they distinct from significant cancer-associated lesions? Lessons from PROMIS[J]. European Urology, 2021, 79(1): 20−29. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.09.043
|
| [13] |
TAMADA T, PRABHU V, LI J, et al. Assessment of prostate cancer aggressiveness using apparent diffusion coefficient values: Impact of patient race and age[J]. Abdominal Radiology, 2017, 42(6): 1744−1751. doi: 10.1007/s00261-017-1058-y
|
| [14] |
HERMIE, BESIEN I, VISSCHERE J, et al. Which clinical and radiological characteristics can predict clinically significant prostate cancer in PI-RADS 3 lesions? A retrospective study in a high-volume academic center[J]. European Journal of Radiology, 2019, 11492-11498.
|
| [15] |
NAN L B, YIN X T, GAO J P. Significant diagnostic value of free-serum PSA (FPSA)/prostate-specific antigen density (PSAD) and (F/T)/PSAD for prostate cancer of the Chinese population in a single institution[J]. Medical Science Monitor: International Medical Journal of Experimental and Clinical Research, 2019, 25: 8345−8351.
|
| [16] |
SONG Z J, QIAN J K, YANG Y, et al. PSA density in the diagnosis of prostate cancer in the Chinese population: Results from the Chinese prostate cancer consortium[J]. Asian Journal of Andrology, 2021, 23(3): 300−305. doi: 10.4103/aja.aja_61_20
|
| [17] |
FELKER, E R, RAMAN S S. Risk stratification among men with prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2 category 3 transition zone lesions: Is biopsy always necessary?[J]. American Journal of Roentgenology, 2017, 209(6): 1272−1277. doi: 10.2214/AJR.17.18008
|
| [18] |
吴静, 汪贤云, 田晓燕, 等. 前列腺特异性抗原密度在PI-RADS v2评分3分患者中的应用价值[J]. 实用放射学杂志, 2021,37(2): 271−274. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-1671.2021.02.024
WU J, WANG X Y, TIAN X Y, et al. Application value of prostate-specific antigen density in the lesion with category 3 of PI-RADS v2[J]. Journal of Practical Radiology, 2021, 37(2): 271−274. (in Chinese). doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-1671.2021.02.024
|
| [19] |
陈志远, 张艳, 周懂晶, 等. 前列腺特异性抗原密度在前列腺影像报告和数据系统第二版评分为3分患者临床决策中的应用[J]. 中国医学影像技术, 2018,34(6): 906−910.
CHEN Z Y, ZHANG Y, ZHOU D J, et al. Value of prostate specific antigen density in clinical decision-making for prostate imaging reporting and data system v2 category 3 lesions[J]. Chinese Journal of Medical Imaging Technology, 2018, 34(6): 906−910. (in Chinese).
|
Supported by: Beijing Renhe Information Technology Co. Ltd 
DownLoad: