Whole-Tumor Quantitative Apparent Diffusion Coefficient Histogram and Texture Analysis to Predict Gleason Score Upgrading in Intermediate-Risk 3 + 4 = 7 Prostate Cancer.

OBJECTIVE The objective of our study was to evaluate whole-lesion quantitative apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) for the prediction of Gleason score (GS) upgrading in 3 + 4 = 7 prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS Fifty-four patients with GS 3 + 4 = 7 prostate cancer diagnosed at systematic transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided biopsy underwent 3-T MRI and radical prostatectomy (RP) between 2012 and 2014. A blinded radiologist contoured dominant tumors on ADC maps using histopathologic correlation. The whole-lesion mean ADC, ADC ratio (normalized to peripheral zone), ADC histogram, and texture analysis were compared between tumors with GS upgrading and those without GS upgrading using multivariate ROC analyses and logistic regression modeling. RESULTS Tumors were upgraded to GS 4 + 3 = 7 after RP in 26% (n = 14) of the 54 patients, and tumors were downgraded after RP in none of the patients. The mean ADC, ADC ratio, 10th-centile ADC, 25th-centile ADC, and 50th-centile ADC were similar between patients with GS 3 + 4 = 7 tumors (0.99 ± 0.22, 0.58 ± 0.15, 0.77 ± 0.31, 0.94 ± 0.28, and 1.15 ± 0.24, respectively) and patients with upgraded GS 4 + 3 = 7 tumors (1.02 ± 0.18, 0.55 ± 0.11, 0.71 ± 0.26, 0.89 ± 0.20, and 1.11 ± 0.16) (p > 0.05). Regression models combining texture features improved the prediction of GS upgrading. The combination of kurtosis, entropy, and skewness yielded an AUC of 0.76 (SE = 0.07) (p < 0.001), a sensitivity of 71%, and a specificity of 73%. The combination of kurtosis, heterogeneity, entropy, and skewness yielded an AUC of 0.77 (SE = 0.07) (p < 0.001), a sensitivity of 71%, and a specificity of 78%. CONCLUSION In this study, whole-lesion mean ADC, ADC ratio, and ADC histogram analysis were not predictive of pathologic upgrading of GS 3 + 4 = 7 prostate cancer after RP. ADC texture analysis improved accuracy.

[1]  A. Evans,et al.  Prostate tissue composition and MR measurements: investigating the relationships between ADC, T2, K(trans), v(e), and corresponding histologic features. , 2010, Radiology.

[2]  H. Hricak,et al.  Haralick texture analysis of prostate MRI: utility for differentiating non-cancerous prostate from prostate cancer and differentiating prostate cancers with different Gleason scores , 2015, European Radiology.

[3]  K. Markou,et al.  National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Head and Neck Cancers NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology . 2010. , 2011 .

[4]  Robert M. Haralick,et al.  Textural Features for Image Classification , 1973, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern..

[5]  E. DeLong,et al.  Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. , 1988, Biometrics.

[6]  Emilie Niaf,et al.  Influence of imaging and histological factors on prostate cancer detection and localisation on multiparametric MRI: a prospective study , 2013, European Radiology.

[7]  Kirsten L. Greene,et al.  Outcomes of active surveillance for men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer. , 2011, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[8]  H. Rusinek,et al.  Whole‐lesion apparent diffusion coefficient metrics as a marker of percentage Gleason 4 component within Gleason 7 prostate cancer at radical prostatectomy , 2015, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[9]  Ian H. Witten,et al.  Data mining: practical machine learning tools and techniques, 3rd Edition , 1999 .

[10]  W. Shabana,et al.  Prostatic ductal adenocarcinoma: an aggressive tumour variant unrecognized on T2 weighted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) , 2014, European Radiology.

[11]  Stephan E Maier,et al.  Multiparametric MRI of prostate cancer: An update on state‐of‐the‐art techniques and their performance in detecting and localizing prostate cancer , 2013, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[12]  N. Schieda,et al.  Assessing the utilization of functional imaging in multiparametric prostate MRI in routine clinical practice. , 2015, Clinical radiology.

[13]  Yousef Mazaheri,et al.  Prostate cancer aggressiveness: assessment with whole-lesion histogram analysis of the apparent diffusion coefficient. , 2014, Radiology.

[14]  T. Stamey,et al.  Relationship between systematic biopsies and histological features of 222 radical prostatectomy specimens: lack of prediction of tumor significance for men with nonpalpable prostate cancer. , 2001, The Journal of urology.

[15]  M. Stasi,et al.  Texture features on T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging: new potential biomarkers for prostate cancer aggressiveness , 2015, Physics in medicine and biology.

[16]  Thomas Wiegel,et al.  EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and treatment of clinically localised disease. , 2011, European urology.

[17]  A. Hoznek,et al.  Patient selection and pathological outcomes using currently available active surveillance criteria , 2013, BJU international.

[18]  Baris Turkbey,et al.  Correlation of magnetic resonance imaging tumor volume with histopathology. , 2012, The Journal of urology.

[19]  A. Evans,et al.  Active surveillance for the management of localized prostate cancer: Guideline recommendations. , 2015, Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada.

[20]  J. Fütterer,et al.  ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012 , 2012, European Radiology.

[21]  Linda M. Johnson,et al.  The Role of MRI in Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance , 2014, BioMed research international.

[22]  L. Egevad,et al.  A Contemporary Prostate Cancer Grading System: A Validated Alternative to the Gleason Score. , 2016, European urology.

[23]  Baris Turkbey,et al.  Comparison of endorectal coil and nonendorectal coil T2W and diffusion‐weighted MRI at 3 Tesla for localizing prostate cancer: Correlation with whole‐mount histopathology , 2014, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[24]  P. Choyke,et al.  Accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in confirming eligibility for active surveillance for men with prostate cancer , 2013, Cancer.

[25]  Jurgen J Fütterer,et al.  Accuracy of multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer detection: a meta-analysis. , 2014, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[26]  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.

[27]  R. V. D. van den Bergh,et al.  Outcomes of initially expectantly managed patients with low or intermediate risk screen‐detected localized prostate cancer , 2012, BJU international.

[28]  M. Rubin,et al.  Consensus statement with recommendations on active surveillance inclusion criteria and definition of progression in men with localized prostate cancer: the critical role of the pathologist , 2014, Virchows Archiv.

[29]  J. Witjes,et al.  Use of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) for Prostate Cancer Detection with Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Diagnostic Meta-analysis. , 2015, European urology.

[30]  Chen Jie,et al.  The value of diffusion-weighted imaging in the detection of prostate cancer: a meta-analysis , 2014, European Radiology.

[31]  G. Cron,et al.  Multi‐parametric (mp) MRI of prostatic ductal adenocarcinoma , 2015, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[32]  D. Brizel,et al.  National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology , 2012 .

[33]  Baris Turkbey,et al.  Magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound-fusion biopsy significantly upgrades prostate cancer versus systematic 12-core transrectal ultrasound biopsy. , 2013, European urology.

[34]  Amita Shukla-Dave,et al.  Role of MRI in prostate cancer detection , 2014, NMR in biomedicine.

[35]  Chih-Jen Lin,et al.  LIBSVM: A library for support vector machines , 2011, TIST.

[36]  L. Klotz,et al.  Active surveillance for clinically localized prostate cancer––A systematic review , 2014, Journal of Surgical Oncology.

[37]  W. Shabana,et al.  Does a cleansing enema improve image quality of 3T surface coil multiparametric prostate MRI? , 2015, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[38]  H. Hricak,et al.  Multiparametric 3T MRI for the prediction of pathological downgrading after radical prostatectomy in patients with biopsy-proven Gleason score 3 + 4 prostate cancer , 2014, European Radiology.

[39]  G. Collewet,et al.  Influence of MRI acquisition protocols and image intensity normalization methods on texture classification. , 2004, Magnetic resonance imaging.

[40]  Mary M. Galloway,et al.  Texture analysis using gray level run lengths , 1974 .

[41]  Baris Turkbey,et al.  Prostate cancer: can multiparametric MR imaging help identify patients who are candidates for active surveillance? , 2013, Radiology.

[42]  Yousef Mazaheri,et al.  Diffusion-weighted endorectal MR imaging at 3 T for prostate cancer: tumor detection and assessment of aggressiveness. , 2011, Radiology.

[43]  Lawrence D. True,et al.  The critical role of the pathologist in determining eligibility for active surveillance as a management option in patients with prostate cancer: consensus statement with recommendations supported by the College of American Pathologists, International Society of Urological Pathology, Association of D , 2014, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[44]  Thomas Wiegel,et al.  Guidelines on Prostate Cancer , 2013 .