Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging · 2018 · 20 citations · 33 references
MedicineOncologyPathologyDiagnostic RadiologyGenitourinary OncologyGenitourinary RadiologyProstate Cancer ImagingProstatic PathologyTumor CharacterizationUrologic Cancer DiagnosisApparent Diffusion Coefficient AnalysisGleason ScoringProstate Cancer Grade GroupingProstate Cancer Risk StratificationProstate Lesion CharacterizationProstatic AciniProstatic Intraepithelial Neoplasia GradingRadical Prostatectomy Specimen Pathology
Background Prostatic intraductal carcinoma (IDC‐P) is an aggressive variant of prostate cancer (PCa) characterized by proliferation of malignant cells within prostatic ducts/acini and nucleomegaly. Purpose/Hypothesis To compare apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values and Prostate Imaging and Data Reporting System (PI‐RADS) v. 2 scores in intermediate risk (International Society of Urological Pathology [ISUP] Grade Group [GG] 2 and 3) PCa with/without IDC‐P to determine if IDC‐P alters the MRI appearance of PCa. Study Type Retrospective, case–control. Population Fifteen consecutive men with ISUP GG 2/3 (Gleason score 3+4 = 7 [ N = 4], 4+3 = 7 [ N = 11]) PCa with IDC‐P diagnosed at radical prostatectomy were compared with: 1) ISUP GG 2/3 PCa without IDC‐P (matched for percentage Gleason pattern 4), and 2) ISUP GG 4 and 5 (Gleason score 8/9) PCa without IDC‐P. Field Strength/Sequence 3T multiparametric MRI. Assessment Two blinded radiologists (R1/R2) measured mean ADC, ADC.ratio (ADC.tumor/ADC.normal peripheral zone) and assigned PI‐RADS v2 scores. Statistical Tests: Chi‐square and analysis of variance (ANOVA). Results There were no differences in age, prostate serum antigen, tumor size, or stage between groups ( P = 0.063‐0.912). Tumors with IDC‐P had lower mean ADC and ADC.ratio (0.741 ± 0.152 mm 2 /sec and 0.44 ± 0.07) compared with ISUP GG 2/3 tumors without IDC‐P (0.888 ± 0.167 mm 2 /sec and 0.62 ± 0.14), P = 0.012 and <0.001; and did not differ compared with ISUP GG 4/5 tumors (0.705 ± 0.141 mm 2 /sec and 0.44 ± 0.08), P = 0.509 and 0.868. Tumors with IDC‐P were nearly all PI‐RADS v2 score 5 (14/15) compared with ISUP GG 2/3 tumors without IDC‐P (10/15 R1, 8/15 R2) and GG 4/5 tumors (9/15), ( P = 0.040 = 0.092). Agreement in PI‐RADS v2 scoring was moderate (K = 0.68). Data Conclusion ISUP GG 2 and 3 (intermediate risk, Gleason score 7) PCa with IDC‐P have lower ADC compared with tumors without IDC‐P with a similar percentage of Gleason pattern 4 and resemble ISUP GG 4 and 5 high risk tumors on MRI. IDC‐P lowers ADC values among intermediate risk prostate cancers. Level of Evidence : 3 Technical Efficacy Stage : 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019;50:279–287.
33
PI-RADS Prostate Imaging – Reporting and Data System: 2015, Version 2
Jeffrey C. Weinreb, Jelle O. Barentsz, Peter L. Choyke et al. · European Urology · 2015 · 2.9K citations
Jonathan I. Epstein, Zhaoyong Feng, Bruce J. Trock et al. · European Urology · 2012 · 666 citations
Ronald C. Chen, R. Bryan Rumble, D.A. Loblaw et al. · Journal of Clinical Oncology · 2016 · 362 citations · Full text