Loading…
Comparison of Diffusion Kurtosis Imaging and Standard Mono-Exponential Apparent Diffusion Coefficient in Diagnosis of Significant Prostate Cancer-A Correlation with Gleason Score Assessed on Whole-Mount Histopathology Specimens
The study was undertaken to compare the diagnostic performance of diffusion kurtosis imaging (DKI) with the standard monoexponential (ME) apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) model in the detection of significant prostate cancer (PCa), using whole-mount histopathology of radical prostatectomy specim...
Saved in:
Published in: | Diagnostics (Basel) 2023-01, Vol.13 (2), p.173 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , , , , , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that this one cites Items that cite this one |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
cited_by | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c499t-be00884bd42ddd5e101a6161df4ce83b93b7b12903c57f4ae9274eda97e52d163 |
---|---|
cites | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c499t-be00884bd42ddd5e101a6161df4ce83b93b7b12903c57f4ae9274eda97e52d163 |
container_end_page | |
container_issue | 2 |
container_start_page | 173 |
container_title | Diagnostics (Basel) |
container_volume | 13 |
creator | Żurowska, Anna Pęksa, Rafał Grzywińska, Małgorzata Panas, Damian Sowa, Marek Skrobisz, Katarzyna Matuszewski, Marcin Szurowska, Edyta |
description | The study was undertaken to compare the diagnostic performance of diffusion kurtosis imaging (DKI) with the standard monoexponential (ME) apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) model in the detection of significant prostate cancer (PCa), using whole-mount histopathology of radical prostatectomy specimens as a reference standard.
155 patients with prostate cancer had undergone multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) at 3T before prostatectomy. Quantitative diffusion parameters-the apparent diffusion coefficient corrected for non-Gaussian behavior (D
), kurtosis (K), ADC
, and ADC
were correlated with Gleason score and compared between cancerous and benign tissue and between GS ≤ 3 + 3 and GS ≥ 3 + 4 tumors.
The mean values of all diffusion parameters (D
, K, ADC
, ADC
) were significantly different both between malignant and benign tissue and between GS ≤ 3 + 3 and GS ≥ 3 + 4 tumors. Although the kurtosis model was better fitted to DWI data, the diagnostic performance in receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis of DKI and the standard ADC model in the detection of significant PCa was similar in the peripheral zone (PZ) and in peripheral and transitional zones (TZ) together. In conclusion, our study was not able to demonstrate a clear superiority of the kurtosis model over standard ADC in the diagnosis of significant PCa in PZ and in both zones combined. |
doi_str_mv | 10.3390/diagnostics13020173 |
format | article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_doaj_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_94e8c64404d84852b056c1bde807ee62</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_94e8c64404d84852b056c1bde807ee62</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>2767192774</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c499t-be00884bd42ddd5e101a6161df4ce83b93b7b12903c57f4ae9274eda97e52d163</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNptksFu1DAQhiMEolXpEyAhS1y4BOzYSZwL0mpb2hWtQFoQx8ixJ1lXiR3sBOjz8iJMuqXaIqIosWf--TzjmSR5yehbziv6zljVOR8nqyPjNKOs5E-S44yWeSoEk08P1kfJaYw3FJ-KcZnlz5MjXhRlVkl-nPxe-2FUwUbviG_JmW3bOVrcfJzD5KONZDOozrqOKGfIdsKvCoZce-fT81-jd-Amq3qyGpGC6wPC2kPbWm0Xq3XouMsYiXjO1nbOolOh73PAOtQEZK2chpCuMDIE6NW0UH7aaUcuelBLhlvtA5BVjICvIWj5tvM9pNd-RtCljZMf1YQm392S7QjaDuDii-RZq_oIp_f_k-Trh_Mv68v06tPFZr26SrWoqiltgFIpRWNEZozJgVGmClYw0woNkjcVb8qGZRXlOi9boaDKSgFGVSXkmWEFP0k2e67x6qYegx1UuK29svWdwYeuVgE71kNdCZC6EIIKI4XMs4bmhWaNAUlLgCJD1vs9a5ybAYzGSwyqfwR97HF2V3f-R13JHHu8JPPmHhD89xniVA82auh75cDPsc7KQmYiz2WF0tf_SG_8HBxe1aIqGdZZClTxvUpjv2KA9iEZRutlJuv_zCRGvTqs4yHm7wTyP-Lt5ks</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2767192774</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of Diffusion Kurtosis Imaging and Standard Mono-Exponential Apparent Diffusion Coefficient in Diagnosis of Significant Prostate Cancer-A Correlation with Gleason Score Assessed on Whole-Mount Histopathology Specimens</title><source>Publicly Available Content Database (Proquest) (PQ_SDU_P3)</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Żurowska, Anna ; Pęksa, Rafał ; Grzywińska, Małgorzata ; Panas, Damian ; Sowa, Marek ; Skrobisz, Katarzyna ; Matuszewski, Marcin ; Szurowska, Edyta</creator><creatorcontrib>Żurowska, Anna ; Pęksa, Rafał ; Grzywińska, Małgorzata ; Panas, Damian ; Sowa, Marek ; Skrobisz, Katarzyna ; Matuszewski, Marcin ; Szurowska, Edyta</creatorcontrib><description>The study was undertaken to compare the diagnostic performance of diffusion kurtosis imaging (DKI) with the standard monoexponential (ME) apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) model in the detection of significant prostate cancer (PCa), using whole-mount histopathology of radical prostatectomy specimens as a reference standard.
155 patients with prostate cancer had undergone multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) at 3T before prostatectomy. Quantitative diffusion parameters-the apparent diffusion coefficient corrected for non-Gaussian behavior (D
), kurtosis (K), ADC
, and ADC
were correlated with Gleason score and compared between cancerous and benign tissue and between GS ≤ 3 + 3 and GS ≥ 3 + 4 tumors.
The mean values of all diffusion parameters (D
, K, ADC
, ADC
) were significantly different both between malignant and benign tissue and between GS ≤ 3 + 3 and GS ≥ 3 + 4 tumors. Although the kurtosis model was better fitted to DWI data, the diagnostic performance in receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis of DKI and the standard ADC model in the detection of significant PCa was similar in the peripheral zone (PZ) and in peripheral and transitional zones (TZ) together. In conclusion, our study was not able to demonstrate a clear superiority of the kurtosis model over standard ADC in the diagnosis of significant PCa in PZ and in both zones combined.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2075-4418</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2075-4418</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics13020173</identifier><identifier>PMID: 36672983</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Switzerland: MDPI AG</publisher><subject>Diffusion Kurtosis Imaging (DKI) ; Diffusion Weighted Imaging (DWI) ; Gleason score ; Histopathology ; Kurtosis ; Magnetic resonance imaging ; Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) ; Patients ; Prostate cancer ; Tumors</subject><ispartof>Diagnostics (Basel), 2023-01, Vol.13 (2), p.173</ispartof><rights>2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>2023 by the authors. 2023</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c499t-be00884bd42ddd5e101a6161df4ce83b93b7b12903c57f4ae9274eda97e52d163</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c499t-be00884bd42ddd5e101a6161df4ce83b93b7b12903c57f4ae9274eda97e52d163</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-4107-6821 ; 0000-0002-7042-4381 ; 0000-0002-4904-7059 ; 0000-0003-3710-9037 ; 0000-0003-2181-2414 ; 0000-0001-6533-5774</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2767192774/fulltextPDF?pq-origsite=primo$$EPDF$$P50$$Gproquest$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2767192774?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,885,25753,27924,27925,37012,37013,44590,53791,53793,74998</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36672983$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Żurowska, Anna</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pęksa, Rafał</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Grzywińska, Małgorzata</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Panas, Damian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sowa, Marek</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Skrobisz, Katarzyna</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Matuszewski, Marcin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Szurowska, Edyta</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of Diffusion Kurtosis Imaging and Standard Mono-Exponential Apparent Diffusion Coefficient in Diagnosis of Significant Prostate Cancer-A Correlation with Gleason Score Assessed on Whole-Mount Histopathology Specimens</title><title>Diagnostics (Basel)</title><addtitle>Diagnostics (Basel)</addtitle><description>The study was undertaken to compare the diagnostic performance of diffusion kurtosis imaging (DKI) with the standard monoexponential (ME) apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) model in the detection of significant prostate cancer (PCa), using whole-mount histopathology of radical prostatectomy specimens as a reference standard.
155 patients with prostate cancer had undergone multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) at 3T before prostatectomy. Quantitative diffusion parameters-the apparent diffusion coefficient corrected for non-Gaussian behavior (D
), kurtosis (K), ADC
, and ADC
were correlated with Gleason score and compared between cancerous and benign tissue and between GS ≤ 3 + 3 and GS ≥ 3 + 4 tumors.
The mean values of all diffusion parameters (D
, K, ADC
, ADC
) were significantly different both between malignant and benign tissue and between GS ≤ 3 + 3 and GS ≥ 3 + 4 tumors. Although the kurtosis model was better fitted to DWI data, the diagnostic performance in receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis of DKI and the standard ADC model in the detection of significant PCa was similar in the peripheral zone (PZ) and in peripheral and transitional zones (TZ) together. In conclusion, our study was not able to demonstrate a clear superiority of the kurtosis model over standard ADC in the diagnosis of significant PCa in PZ and in both zones combined.</description><subject>Diffusion Kurtosis Imaging (DKI)</subject><subject>Diffusion Weighted Imaging (DWI)</subject><subject>Gleason score</subject><subject>Histopathology</subject><subject>Kurtosis</subject><subject>Magnetic resonance imaging</subject><subject>Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI)</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Prostate cancer</subject><subject>Tumors</subject><issn>2075-4418</issn><issn>2075-4418</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2023</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>PIMPY</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNptksFu1DAQhiMEolXpEyAhS1y4BOzYSZwL0mpb2hWtQFoQx8ixJ1lXiR3sBOjz8iJMuqXaIqIosWf--TzjmSR5yehbziv6zljVOR8nqyPjNKOs5E-S44yWeSoEk08P1kfJaYw3FJ-KcZnlz5MjXhRlVkl-nPxe-2FUwUbviG_JmW3bOVrcfJzD5KONZDOozrqOKGfIdsKvCoZce-fT81-jd-Amq3qyGpGC6wPC2kPbWm0Xq3XouMsYiXjO1nbOolOh73PAOtQEZK2chpCuMDIE6NW0UH7aaUcuelBLhlvtA5BVjICvIWj5tvM9pNd-RtCljZMf1YQm392S7QjaDuDii-RZq_oIp_f_k-Trh_Mv68v06tPFZr26SrWoqiltgFIpRWNEZozJgVGmClYw0woNkjcVb8qGZRXlOi9boaDKSgFGVSXkmWEFP0k2e67x6qYegx1UuK29svWdwYeuVgE71kNdCZC6EIIKI4XMs4bmhWaNAUlLgCJD1vs9a5ybAYzGSwyqfwR97HF2V3f-R13JHHu8JPPmHhD89xniVA82auh75cDPsc7KQmYiz2WF0tf_SG_8HBxe1aIqGdZZClTxvUpjv2KA9iEZRutlJuv_zCRGvTqs4yHm7wTyP-Lt5ks</recordid><startdate>20230104</startdate><enddate>20230104</enddate><creator>Żurowska, Anna</creator><creator>Pęksa, Rafał</creator><creator>Grzywińska, Małgorzata</creator><creator>Panas, Damian</creator><creator>Sowa, Marek</creator><creator>Skrobisz, Katarzyna</creator><creator>Matuszewski, Marcin</creator><creator>Szurowska, Edyta</creator><general>MDPI AG</general><general>MDPI</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4107-6821</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7042-4381</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4904-7059</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3710-9037</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2181-2414</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6533-5774</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20230104</creationdate><title>Comparison of Diffusion Kurtosis Imaging and Standard Mono-Exponential Apparent Diffusion Coefficient in Diagnosis of Significant Prostate Cancer-A Correlation with Gleason Score Assessed on Whole-Mount Histopathology Specimens</title><author>Żurowska, Anna ; Pęksa, Rafał ; Grzywińska, Małgorzata ; Panas, Damian ; Sowa, Marek ; Skrobisz, Katarzyna ; Matuszewski, Marcin ; Szurowska, Edyta</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c499t-be00884bd42ddd5e101a6161df4ce83b93b7b12903c57f4ae9274eda97e52d163</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2023</creationdate><topic>Diffusion Kurtosis Imaging (DKI)</topic><topic>Diffusion Weighted Imaging (DWI)</topic><topic>Gleason score</topic><topic>Histopathology</topic><topic>Kurtosis</topic><topic>Magnetic resonance imaging</topic><topic>Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI)</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Prostate cancer</topic><topic>Tumors</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Żurowska, Anna</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pęksa, Rafał</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Grzywińska, Małgorzata</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Panas, Damian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sowa, Marek</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Skrobisz, Katarzyna</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Matuszewski, Marcin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Szurowska, Edyta</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>AUTh Library subscriptions: ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>ProQuest Research Library</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database (Proquest) (PQ_SDU_P3)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>Diagnostics (Basel)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Żurowska, Anna</au><au>Pęksa, Rafał</au><au>Grzywińska, Małgorzata</au><au>Panas, Damian</au><au>Sowa, Marek</au><au>Skrobisz, Katarzyna</au><au>Matuszewski, Marcin</au><au>Szurowska, Edyta</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of Diffusion Kurtosis Imaging and Standard Mono-Exponential Apparent Diffusion Coefficient in Diagnosis of Significant Prostate Cancer-A Correlation with Gleason Score Assessed on Whole-Mount Histopathology Specimens</atitle><jtitle>Diagnostics (Basel)</jtitle><addtitle>Diagnostics (Basel)</addtitle><date>2023-01-04</date><risdate>2023</risdate><volume>13</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>173</spage><pages>173-</pages><issn>2075-4418</issn><eissn>2075-4418</eissn><abstract>The study was undertaken to compare the diagnostic performance of diffusion kurtosis imaging (DKI) with the standard monoexponential (ME) apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) model in the detection of significant prostate cancer (PCa), using whole-mount histopathology of radical prostatectomy specimens as a reference standard.
155 patients with prostate cancer had undergone multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) at 3T before prostatectomy. Quantitative diffusion parameters-the apparent diffusion coefficient corrected for non-Gaussian behavior (D
), kurtosis (K), ADC
, and ADC
were correlated with Gleason score and compared between cancerous and benign tissue and between GS ≤ 3 + 3 and GS ≥ 3 + 4 tumors.
The mean values of all diffusion parameters (D
, K, ADC
, ADC
) were significantly different both between malignant and benign tissue and between GS ≤ 3 + 3 and GS ≥ 3 + 4 tumors. Although the kurtosis model was better fitted to DWI data, the diagnostic performance in receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis of DKI and the standard ADC model in the detection of significant PCa was similar in the peripheral zone (PZ) and in peripheral and transitional zones (TZ) together. In conclusion, our study was not able to demonstrate a clear superiority of the kurtosis model over standard ADC in the diagnosis of significant PCa in PZ and in both zones combined.</abstract><cop>Switzerland</cop><pub>MDPI AG</pub><pmid>36672983</pmid><doi>10.3390/diagnostics13020173</doi><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4107-6821</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7042-4381</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4904-7059</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3710-9037</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2181-2414</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6533-5774</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 2075-4418 |
ispartof | Diagnostics (Basel), 2023-01, Vol.13 (2), p.173 |
issn | 2075-4418 2075-4418 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_94e8c64404d84852b056c1bde807ee62 |
source | Publicly Available Content Database (Proquest) (PQ_SDU_P3); PubMed Central |
subjects | Diffusion Kurtosis Imaging (DKI) Diffusion Weighted Imaging (DWI) Gleason score Histopathology Kurtosis Magnetic resonance imaging Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) Patients Prostate cancer Tumors |
title | Comparison of Diffusion Kurtosis Imaging and Standard Mono-Exponential Apparent Diffusion Coefficient in Diagnosis of Significant Prostate Cancer-A Correlation with Gleason Score Assessed on Whole-Mount Histopathology Specimens |
url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-07T14%3A12%3A36IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_doaj_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%20Diffusion%20Kurtosis%20Imaging%20and%20Standard%20Mono-Exponential%20Apparent%20Diffusion%20Coefficient%20in%20Diagnosis%20of%20Significant%20Prostate%20Cancer-A%20Correlation%20with%20Gleason%20Score%20Assessed%20on%20Whole-Mount%20Histopathology%20Specimens&rft.jtitle=Diagnostics%20(Basel)&rft.au=%C5%BBurowska,%20Anna&rft.date=2023-01-04&rft.volume=13&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=173&rft.pages=173-&rft.issn=2075-4418&rft.eissn=2075-4418&rft_id=info:doi/10.3390/diagnostics13020173&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_doaj_%3E2767192774%3C/proquest_doaj_%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c499t-be00884bd42ddd5e101a6161df4ce83b93b7b12903c57f4ae9274eda97e52d163%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2767192774&rft_id=info:pmid/36672983&rfr_iscdi=true |