Characterization of prostate cancer using T2 mapping at 3T: a multi-scanner study.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES To assess the prostate T2 value as a predictor of malignancy on two different 3T scanners. PATIENTS AND METHODS Eighty-three pre-prostatectomy multiparametric MRIs were retrospectively evaluated [67 obtained on a General Electric MRI (scanner 1) and 16 on a Philips MRI (scanner 2)]. After correlation with prostatectomy specimens, readers measured the T2 value of regions-of-interest categorized as "cancers", "false positive lesions", or "normal tissue". RESULTS On scanner 1, in PZ, cancers had significantly lower T2 values than false positive lesions (P=0.02) and normal tissue (P=2×10(-9)). Gleason≥6 cancers had similar T2 values than false positive lesions and significantly higher T2 values than Gleason≥7 cancers (P=0.009). T2 values corresponding to a 25% and 75% risk of Gleason≥7 malignancy were respectively 132 ms (95% CI: 129-135 ms) and 77 ms (95% CI: 74-81 ms). In TZ, cancers had significantly lower T2 values than normal tissue (P=0.008), but not than false positive findings. Mean T2 values measured on scanner 2 were not significantly different than those measured on scanner 1 for all tissue classes. CONCLUSION All tested tissue classes had similar mean T2 values on both scanners. In PZ, the T2 value was a significant predictor of Gleason≥7 cancers.

[1]  M. Giger,et al.  Quantitative analysis of multiparametric prostate MR images: differentiation between prostate cancer and normal tissue and correlation with Gleason score--a computer-aided diagnosis development study. , 2013, Radiology.

[2]  Baris Turkbey,et al.  Accelerated T2 mapping for characterization of prostate cancer , 2011, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[3]  A. Heidenreich Consensus criteria for the use of magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis and staging of prostate cancer: not ready for routine use. , 2011, European urology.

[4]  Liang Cheng,et al.  International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Handling and Staging of Radical Prostatectomy Specimens. Working group 5: surgical margins , 2011, Modern Pathology.

[5]  O. Rouvière,et al.  Characterization of prostate lesions as benign or malignant at multiparametric MR imaging: comparison of three scoring systems in patients treated with radical prostatectomy. , 2014, Radiology.

[6]  Baris Turkbey,et al.  Multiparametric 3T prostate magnetic resonance imaging to detect cancer: histopathological correlation using prostatectomy specimens processed in customized magnetic resonance imaging based molds. , 2011, The Journal of urology.

[7]  Bernd Hamm,et al.  Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging and pharmacokinetic models in prostate cancer , 2011, European Radiology.

[8]  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.

[9]  A. Oto,et al.  Diffusion-weighted and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI of prostate cancer: correlation of quantitative MR parameters with Gleason score and tumor angiogenesis. , 2011, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[10]  Xavier Leroy,et al.  Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI of anterior prostate cancer: morphometric assessment and correlation with radical prostatectomy findings , 2009, European Radiology.

[11]  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.

[12]  M. Colombel,et al.  Is it possible to model the risk of malignancy of focal abnormalities found at prostate multiparametric MRI? , 2012, European Radiology.

[13]  Henkjan J Huisman,et al.  Discrimination of prostate cancer from normal peripheral zone and central gland tissue by using dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. , 2003, Radiology.

[14]  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.

[15]  M. Moche,et al.  Diagnostic value of ADC in patients with prostate cancer: influence of the choice of b values , 2012, European Radiology.

[16]  Seong Ho Park,et al.  Wash‐in rate on the basis of dynamic contrast‐enhanced MRI: Usefulness for prostate cancer detection and localization , 2005, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[17]  M. Colombel,et al.  Differentiation of transitional zone prostate cancer from benign hyperplasia nodules: evaluation of discriminant criteria at multiparametric MRI. , 2013, Clinical radiology.

[18]  A. Evans,et al.  Prostate cancer detection with multi‐parametric MRI: Logistic regression analysis of quantitative T2, diffusion‐weighted imaging, and dynamic contrast‐enhanced MRI , 2009, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[19]  Evis Sala,et al.  Transition zone prostate cancers: features, detection, localization, and staging at endorectal MR imaging. , 2006, Radiology.

[20]  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.

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

[22]  B. Carey,et al.  Magnetic resonance imaging for the detection, localisation, and characterisation of prostate cancer: recommendations from a European consensus meeting. , 2011, European urology.

[23]  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.

[24]  Thomas Hambrock,et al.  Prospective assessment of prostate cancer aggressiveness using 3-T diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging-guided biopsies versus a systematic 10-core transrectal ultrasound prostate biopsy cohort. , 2012, European urology.

[25]  Brett Delahunt,et al.  [International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on handling and staging of radical prostatectomy specimens]. , 2013, Annales de pathologie.

[26]  Carole Lartizien,et al.  Computer-aided diagnosis of prostate cancer in the peripheral zone using multiparametric MRI , 2012, Physics in medicine and biology.

[27]  Aytekin Oto,et al.  Hybrid multidimensional T2 and diffusion‐weighted MRI for prostate cancer detection , 2014, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

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

[29]  A. Vickers,et al.  Novel approaches to improve prostate cancer diagnosis and management in early‐stage disease , 2012, BJU international.

[30]  G P Liney,et al.  In vivo quantification of citrate concentration and water T2 relaxation time of the pathologic prostate gland using 1H MRS and MRI. , 1997, Magnetic resonance imaging.

[31]  Lars Egevad,et al.  International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Handling and Staging of Radical Prostatectomy Specimens. Working group 1: specimen handling , 2011, Modern Pathology.

[32]  H. Huisman,et al.  Prostate cancer: computer-aided diagnosis with multiparametric 3-T MR imaging--effect on observer performance. , 2013, Radiology.

[33]  Reducing the influence of b‐value selection on diffusion‐weighted imaging of the prostate: Evaluation of a revised monoexponential model within a clinical setting , 2012, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[34]  J. Babb,et al.  Prostate cancer localization using multiparametric MR imaging: comparison of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) and Likert scales. , 2013, Radiology.

[35]  S. Haker,et al.  Carr-Purcell-Meiboom-Gill imaging of prostate cancer: quantitative T2 values for cancer discrimination. , 2009, Magnetic resonance imaging.

[36]  Thomas Hambrock,et al.  Transition zone prostate cancer: detection and localization with 3-T multiparametric MR imaging. , 2013, Radiology.

[37]  C. Hutchinson,et al.  Benign prostatic hyperplasia: Evaluation of T1, T2, and microvascular characteristics with T1‐weighted dynamic contrast‐enhanced MRI , 2009, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[38]  C. Parker,et al.  Apparent diffusion coefficient as a predictive biomarker of prostate cancer progression: value of fast and slow diffusion components. , 2011, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.