Apparent diffusion coefficient ratio correlates significantly with prostate cancer gleason score at final pathology

To evaluate the correlation between apparent diffusion coefficient measurements (ADCtumor and ADCratio) and the Gleason score from radical prostatectomy specimens.

[1]  L. Egevad,et al.  The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma , 2005, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[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]  Jennifer L. Beebe-Dimmer,et al.  Prognostic Gleason grade grouping : data based on the modified Gleason scoring system , 2013 .

[4]  M. Moche,et al.  Non-invasive estimation of prostate cancer aggressiveness using diffusion-weighted MRI and 3D proton MR spectroscopy at 3.0 T , 2015, Acta radiologica.

[5]  Henrik S. Thomsen,et al.  Early experience with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsies under visual transrectal ultrasound guidance in patients suspicious for prostate cancer undergoing repeated biopsy , 2015, Scandinavian journal of urology.

[6]  Baris Turkbey,et al.  Is apparent diffusion coefficient associated with clinical risk scores for prostate cancers that are visible on 3-T MR images? , 2011, Radiology.

[7]  Michael W Kattan,et al.  Postoperative nomogram predicting the 10-year probability of prostate cancer recurrence after radical prostatectomy. , 2005, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[8]  Andrei Lebovici,et al.  Evaluation of the normal-to-diseased apparent diffusion coefficient ratio as an indicator of prostate cancer aggressiveness , 2014, BMC Medical Imaging.

[9]  Wun-Jae Kim,et al.  Incidence of Upgrading and Upstaging in Patients with Low-Volume Gleason Score 3+4 Prostate Cancers at Biopsy: Finding a New Group Eligible for Active Surveillance , 2013, Urologia Internationalis.

[10]  M. Roethke,et al.  Evaluation of the ESUR PI-RADS scoring system for multiparametric MRI of the prostate with targeted MR/TRUS fusion-guided biopsy at 3.0 Tesla , 2014, European Radiology.

[11]  L. Klotz,et al.  Active Surveillance for Low-Risk Prostate Cancer , 2015, Current Urology Reports.

[12]  R. Sutherland,et al.  Prognostic significance of Gleason pattern in patients with Gleason score 7 prostate carcinoma , 2003, Cancer.

[13]  Jing Ma,et al.  Gleason score and lethal prostate cancer: does 3 + 4 = 4 + 3? , 2009, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[14]  D. Margolis,et al.  Targeted prostate biopsy in select men for active surveillance: do the Epstein criteria still apply? , 2014, The Journal of urology.

[15]  Misop Han,et al.  Predicting 15-year prostate cancer specific mortality after radical prostatectomy. , 2011, The Journal of urology.

[16]  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.

[17]  C. Kim,et al.  High-b-value diffusion-weighted imaging at 3 T to detect prostate cancer: comparisons between b values of 1,000 and 2,000 s/mm2. , 2010, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

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

[19]  Fang-Ming Deng,et al.  Gleason Score 3 + 4=7 Prostate Cancer With Minimal Quantity of Gleason Pattern 4 on Needle Biopsy Is Associated With Low-risk Tumor in Radical Prostatectomy Specimen , 2014, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[20]  J. Babb,et al.  Prostate cancer vs. post‐biopsy hemorrhage: Diagnosis with T2‐ and diffusion‐weighted imaging , 2010, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[21]  Bruce J Trock,et al.  Upgrading and downgrading of prostate cancer from biopsy to radical prostatectomy: incidence and predictive factors using the modified Gleason grading system and factoring in tertiary grades. , 2012, European urology.

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

[23]  Oguz Akin,et al.  Transition zone prostate cancer: incremental value of diffusion-weighted endorectal MR imaging in tumor detection and assessment of aggressiveness. , 2013, Radiology.

[24]  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.

[25]  D. Dearnaley,et al.  A study of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in men with untreated localised prostate cancer on active surveillance. , 2009, European urology.

[26]  H. Huisman,et al.  Interpatient variation in normal peripheral zone apparent diffusion coefficient: effect on the prediction of prostate cancer aggressiveness. , 2012, Radiology.

[27]  Namkug Kim,et al.  Apparent diffusion coefficient: Prostate cancer versus noncancerous tissue according to anatomical region , 2008, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

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

[29]  T. H. van der Kwast,et al.  EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent-update 2013. , 2014, European urology.

[30]  Mark Emberton,et al.  The role of MRI in active surveillance of prostate cancer , 2013, Current opinion in urology.

[31]  Cary Siegel,et al.  Prostate cancer vs. post-biopsy hemorrhage: diagnosis with T2- and diffusion-weighted imaging. , 2011, The Journal of urology.

[32]  Brett Delahunt,et al.  Gleason grading: past, present and future , 2012, Histopathology.

[33]  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.

[34]  Aytekin Oto,et al.  Prostate cancer: differentiation of central gland cancer from benign prostatic hyperplasia by using diffusion-weighted and dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. , 2010, Radiology.

[35]  A W Partin,et al.  Prognostic significance of Gleason score 3+4 versus Gleason score 4+3 tumor at radical prostatectomy. , 2000, Urology.

[36]  S. Chandrakanth.  Gleason Score 7 Prostate Cancer on Needle Biopsy: Relation of Primary Pattern 3 or 4 to Pathological Stage and Progression After Radical Prostatectomy , 2012 .

[37]  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.

[38]  C. Parker,et al.  Relationship between T2 relaxation and apparent diffusion coefficient in malignant and non-malignant prostate regions and the effect of peripheral zone fractional volume. , 2013, The British journal of radiology.

[39]  P. Scardino,et al.  Primary Gleason Pattern as a Predictor of Disease Progression in Gleason Score 7 Prostate Cancer: A Multivariate Analysis of 823 Men Treated With Radical Prostatectomy , 2001, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[40]  Gary P Liney,et al.  Correlation of ADC and T2 Measurements With Cell Density in Prostate Cancer at 3.0 Tesla , 2009, Investigative radiology.

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