Detection of prostate cancer in peripheral zone: comparison of MR diffusion tensor imaging, quantitative dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI, and the two techniques combined at 3.0 T

• Published in: Acta radiologica (1987) Vol. 55; no. 2; p. 239
• Main Authors: Li, Chunmei, Chen, Min, Li, Saying, Zhao, Xuna, Zhang, Chen, Luo, Xiaojie, Zhou, Cheng
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England 01.03.2014
• Subjects: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Contrast Media; Diffusion Tensor Imaging; Gadolinium DTPA; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Predictive Value of Tests; Prostatic Neoplasms - diagnosis; Retrospective Studies; ROC Curve; prostate cancer; dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI; Diffusion tensor imaging
• ISSN: 1600-0455
• DOI: 10.1177/0284185113494978

Previous studies have shown that the diagnostic accuracy for prostate cancer improved with diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) or quantitative dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) only. However, the efficacy of combined DTI and quantitative DCE-MRI in detecting prostate cancer at 3.0 T is still indeterminate. To investigate the utility of diffusion tensor imaging (DTI), quantitative DCE-MRI, and the two techniques combined at 3.0 T in detecting prostate cancer of the peripheral zone (PZ). DTI and DCE-MRI of 33 patients was acquired prior to prostate biopsy. Regions of interest (ROIs) were drawn according to biopsy zones which were apex, mid-gland, and base on each side of the PZ. Apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), fractional anisotropy (FA), volume transfer constant (K(trans)), and rate constant (kep) values of cancerous sextants and non-cancerous sextants in PZ were calculated. Logistic regression models were generated for DTI, DCE-MRI, and DTI + DCE-MRI. Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to compare the ability of these models to differentiate cancerous sextants from non-cancerous sextants of PZ. There were significant differences in the ADC, FA, K(trans), and kep values between cancerous sextants and non-cancerous sextants in PZ (P < 0.0001, P < 0.0001, P < 0.0001, and P < 0.0001, respectively). The area under curve (AUC) for DTI + DCE-MRI was significantly greater than that for either DTI (0.93 vs. 0.86, P = 0.0017) or DCE-MRI (0.93 vs. 0.84, P = 0.0034) alone. The combination of DTI and quantitative DCE-MRI has better diagnostic performance in detecting prostate cancer of the PZ than either technique alone.