Initial Experience With Identifying High-Grade Prostate Cancer Using Diffusion-Weighted MR Imaging (DWI) in Patients With a Gleason Score ⩽3 + 3 = 6 Upon Schematic TRUS-Guided Biopsy: A Radical Prostatectomy Correlated Series

Introduction:Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance (MR) imaging (DWI) might be able to fulfill the need to accurately identify high-grade prostate carcinoma, in patients initially selected for active surveillance in the Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) screening era based on transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy Gleason score. We aimed to determine whether DWI is able to correctly identify those patients with a biopsy Gleason score of ⩽3 + 3 = 6, but harboring Gleason 4 and/or 5 components in their radical prostatectomy (RP) specimen. Materials and Methods:Whole-mount RP specimens were used to identify regions of interest corresponding with tumor on the DWI-derived apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) maps in 23 patients with a Gleason ⩽3 + 3 = 6 on biopsy. ADC values were correlated with RP Gleason grades. Statistical analysis was performed by calculating area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for identification of prostate cancer with Gleason 4 and/or 5 components using DWI, and Mann-Whitney U testing was performed to detect differences in median ADC values for tumors with presence of Gleason grade 4 and/or 5 versus a highest Gleason grade of ⩽3 on RP. Results:A diagnostic accuracy of median ADC values for identifying patients subject to transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy undergrading with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.88 was established using RP Gleason score as a reference. In patients harboring a Gleason 4 and/or 5 component, the median ADC was 0.86 × 10(−3) mm2/s (standard deviation ± 0.21), whereas patients harboring no Gleason 4 and/or 5 component displayed a median ADC of 1.16 × 10(−3) mm2/s (standard deviation ± 0.19) for the single tumor slice with the lowest median ADC (P < 0.002). Conclusions:DWI is able to predict the presence of high-grade tumor in patients with a Gleason ⩽3 + 3 = 6 on biopsy, providing important information for treatment decisions.

[1]  Thomas Hambrock,et al.  Relationship between apparent diffusion coefficients at 3.0-T MR imaging and Gleason grade in peripheral zone prostate cancer. , 2011, Radiology.

[2]  S. Verma,et al.  Assessment of aggressiveness of prostate cancer: correlation of apparent diffusion coefficient with histologic grade after radical prostatectomy. , 2011, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[3]  L. Kiemeney,et al.  Prostate cancer: trends in incidence, survival and mortality in the Netherlands, 1989-2006. , 2010, European journal of cancer.

[4]  J. Machan,et al.  Diffusion-weighted MRI of peripheral zone prostate cancer: comparison of tumor apparent diffusion coefficient with Gleason score and percentage of tumor on core biopsy. , 2010, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[5]  L. Kiemeney,et al.  The length of positive surgical margins correlates with biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy , 2010, Histopathology.

[6]  A. Prando.  Prostate tumor volume measurement with combined T2-weighted imaging and diffusion-weighted MR: correlation with pathologic tumor volume , 2009 .

[7]  M. Jarmulowicz,et al.  Final outcomes of patients with low‐risk prostate cancer suitable for active surveillance but treated surgically , 2009, BJU international.

[8]  Jason A Koutcher,et al.  Prostate tumor volume measurement with combined T2-weighted imaging and diffusion-weighted MR: correlation with pathologic tumor volume. , 2009, Radiology.

[9]  Michael Seitz,et al.  Insignificant prostate cancer and active surveillance: from definition to clinical implications. , 2009, European urology.

[10]  Bin Wang,et al.  Diffusion‐weighted imaging of prostate cancer: Correlation between apparent diffusion coefficient values and tumor proliferation , 2009, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[11]  Gary Liney,et al.  Correlation of diffusion‐weighted magnetic resonance data with cellularity in prostate cancer , 2009, BJU international.

[12]  Deanna L Langer,et al.  Intermixed normal tissue within prostate cancer: effect on MR imaging measurements of apparent diffusion coefficient and T2--sparse versus dense cancers. , 2008, Radiology.

[13]  A. Haese*,et al.  Validation of the contemporary epstein criteria for insignificant prostate cancer in European men. , 2008, European urology.

[14]  Thomas Hambrock,et al.  Diffusion and perfusion MR imaging of the prostate. , 2008, Magnetic resonance imaging clinics of North America.

[15]  J. Moul,et al.  Significant discrepancies between diagnostic and pathologic Gleason sums in prostate cancer: the predictive role of age and prostate-specific antigen. , 2008, Urology.

[16]  Katsuyoshi Ito,et al.  Apparent diffusion coefficient values in peripheral and transition zones of the prostate: Comparison between normal and malignant prostatic tissues and correlation with histologic grade , 2008, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[17]  N M deSouza,et al.  Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging: a potential non-invasive marker of tumour aggressiveness in localized prostate cancer. , 2008, Clinical radiology.

[18]  J. Epstein,et al.  A contemporary study correlating prostate needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy Gleason score. , 2008, The Journal of urology.

[19]  M. Terris,et al.  PSA in the new millennium: a powerful predictor of prostate cancer prognosis and radical prostatectomy outcomes--results from the SEARCH database. , 2008, European urology.

[20]  Jason A Koutcher,et al.  Prostate cancer: identification with combined diffusion-weighted MR imaging and 3D 1H MR spectroscopic imaging--correlation with pathologic findings. , 2008, Radiology.

[21]  B. G. Blijenberg,et al.  hK2 and free PSA, a prognostic combination in predicting minimal prostate cancer in screen-detected men within the PSA range 4-10 ng/ml. , 2007, European urology.

[22]  W. Catalona,et al.  Pathological features after radical prostatectomy in potential candidates for active monitoring. , 2007, The Journal of urology.

[23]  Masoom A Haider,et al.  Combined T2-weighted and diffusion-weighted MRI for localization of prostate cancer. , 2007, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[24]  T. H. van der Kwast,et al.  Cancer detection and cancer characteristics in the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC)--Section Rotterdam. A comparison of two rounds of screening. , 2007, European urology.

[25]  L. Turnbull,et al.  Diffusion‐weighted imaging of normal and malignant prostate tissue at 3.0T , 2006, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[26]  R Montironi,et al.  Gleason grading of prostate cancer. Contemporary approach. , 2005, Pathologica.

[27]  Takeo Ishigaki,et al.  Differentiation of noncancerous tissue and cancer lesions by apparent diffusion coefficient values in transition and peripheral zones of the prostate , 2005, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[28]  R. Cohen,et al.  Gleason Grading of Prostate Cancer: A Contemporary Approach , 2004 .

[29]  K. Hosseinzadeh,et al.  Endorectal diffusion‐weighted imaging in prostate cancer to differentiate malignant and benign peripheral zone tissue , 2004, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[30]  Yan Yan,et al.  Relating biopsy and clinical variables to radical prostatectomy findings: can insignificant and advanced prostate cancer be predicted in a screening population? , 2004, Urology.

[31]  M. Graefen,et al.  Insignificant prostate cancer in radical prostatectomy specimen: time trends and preoperative prediction. , 2003, European urology.

[32]  D. Grignon,et al.  How accurately does prostate biopsy Gleason score predict pathologic findings and disease free survival? , 2001, The Prostate.

[33]  D. Gleason,et al.  Histologic grading of prostate cancer: a perspective. , 1992, Human pathology.

[34]  J. Witjes,et al.  Predictive value of PCA3 in urinary sediments in determining clinico‐pathological characteristics of prostate cancer , 2010, The Prostate.

[35]  M. Wirth,et al.  [European Association of Urology. Position statement on screening for prostate cancer]. , 2010, Actas urologicas espanolas.

[36]  J. Epstein,et al.  Letters to the Editor/Errata Re: Radical Prostatectomy Findings in Patients in Whom Active Surveillance of Prostate Cancer Fails , 2010 .

[37]  B. G. Blijenberg,et al.  Screening and prostate-cancer mortality in a randomized European study. , 2009, The New England journal of medicine.

[38]  Seymour Rosen,et al.  Extended prostate needle biopsy improves concordance of Gleason grading between prostate needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy. , 2003, The Journal of urology.