Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology (대한영상의학회지)

The Korean Society of Radiology (대한영상의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparison of Computed Diffusion-Weighted Imaging b2000 and Acquired Diffusion-Weighted Imaging b2000 for Detection of Prostate Cancer

전립선암 발견을 위한 계산형 확산강조영상 b2000과 실제 획득한 b2000 영상의 비교

  • Yeon Jung Kim (Department of Radiology, Inje University College of Medicine, Haeundae Paik Hospital) ;
  • Seung Ho Kim (Department of Radiology, Inje University College of Medicine, Haeundae Paik Hospital) ;
  • Tae Wook Baek (Department of Radiology, Inje University College of Medicine, Haeundae Paik Hospital) ;
  • Hyungin Park (Department of Radiology, Inje University College of Medicine, Haeundae Paik Hospital) ;
  • Yun-jung Lim (Department of Radiology, Inje University College of Medicine, Haeundae Paik Hospital) ;
  • Hyun Kyung Jung (Department of Radiology, Inje University College of Medicine, Haeundae Paik Hospital) ;
  • Joo Yeon Kim (Department of Pathology, Inje University College of Medicine, Haeundae Paik Hospital)
  • 김연정 (인제대학교 의과대학 해운대백병원 영상의학과) ;
  • 김승호 (인제대학교 의과대학 해운대백병원 영상의학과) ;
  • 백태욱 (인제대학교 의과대학 해운대백병원 영상의학과) ;
  • 박형인 (인제대학교 의과대학 해운대백병원 영상의학과) ;
  • 임윤정 (인제대학교 의과대학 해운대백병원 영상의학과) ;
  • 정현경 (인제대학교 의과대학 해운대백병원 영상의학과) ;
  • 김주연 (인제대학교 의과대학 해운대백병원 병리과)
  • Received : 2022.01.07
  • Accepted : 2022.03.21
  • Published : 2022.09.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose To compare the sensitivity of tumor detection and inter-observer agreement between acquired diffusion-weighted imaging (aDWI) b2000 and computed DWI (cDWI) b2000 in patients with prostate cancer (PCa). Materials and Methods Eighty-eight patients diagnosed with PCa by radical prostatectomy and having undergone pre-operative 3 Tesla-MRI, including DWI (b, 0, 100, 1000, 2000 s/mm2), were included in the study. cDWI b2000 was obtained from aDWI b0, b100, and b1000. Two independent reviewers performed a review of the aDWI b2000 and cDWI b2000 images in random order at 4-week intervals. A region of interest was drawn for the largest tumor on each dataset, and a Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) score based on PI-RADS v2.1 was recorded. Histologic topographic maps served as the reference standard. Results The study population's Gleason scores were 6 (n = 16), 7 (n = 53), 8 (n = 9), and 9 (n = 10). According to the reviewers, the sensitivities of cDWI b2000 and aDWI b2000 showed no significant differences (for reviewer 1, both 94% [83/88]; for reviewer 2, both 90% [79/88]; p = 1.000, respectively). The kappa values of cDWI b2000 and aDWI b2000 for the PI-RADS score were 0.422 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.240-0.603) and 0.495 (95% CI, 0.308-0.683), respectively. Conclusion cDWI b2000 showed comparable sensitivity with aDWI b2000, in addition to sustained moderate inter-observer agreement, in the detection of PCa.

목적 계산형 확산강조영상 b2000과 실제 획득한 확산강조영상 b2000 사이에 전립선암 발견을 위한 민감도 및 관찰자 간 일치도를 비교하였다. 대상과 방법 근치적 전립선 절제술 및 확산강조영상(b, 0, 100, 1000, 2000 s/mm2)을 포함한 수술 전 3 Tesla 자기공명영상을 통해 전립선암으로 진단받은 총 88명의 환자가 연구에 포함되었다. 계산형 확산강조영상 b2000은 실제 획득한 확산강조영상 b0, 100, 1000으로부터 단일 지수 감쇠 모델에 의해 계산되었다. 두 명의 독립된 검토자가 4주 간격으로 무작위 순서로 두 영상 세트를 검토하여, 가장 큰 종양에 대해 관심 영역을 그렸고, Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System 2.1에 기반한 점수를 기록하였다. 전층 절편 조직 검사가 참고 기준으로 제공되었다. 결과 연구에 포함된 환자의 글리슨 점수는 6 (n = 16), 7 (n = 53), 8 (n = 9), 9 (n = 10)로 구성되었다. 두 명의 검토자 모두 계산형 확산강조영상 b2000과 실제 획득한 확산강조영상 b2000 간 전립선암 발견에 대한 민감도 차이는 없었다(검토자 1, 모두 94% [83/88]; 검토자 2, 모두 90% [79/88], 모두 p = 1.000). 관찰자 간 PI-RADS 점수에 대한 일치도는 계산형 확산강조영상에서 0.422 (95% 신뢰구간, 0.240-0.603), 실제 획득한 확산강조영상에서 0.495 (95% 신뢰구간, 0.308-0.683)였다. 결론 계산형 확산강조영상 b2000과 실제 획득한 확산강조영상 b2000은 전립선암 발견 민감도에 차이가 없고, 관찰자 간 일치도는 유지되었다.

Keywords

References

  1. Corcoran NM, Hong MK, Casey RG, Hurtado-Coll A, Peters J, Harewood L, et al. Upgrade in Gleason score between prostate biopsies and pathology following radical prostatectomy significantly impacts upon the risk of biochemical recurrence. BJU Int 2011;108(8 Pt 2):E202-E210
  2. Cohen MS, Hanley RS, Kurteva T, Ruthazer R, Silverman ML, Sorcini A, et al. Comparing the Gleason prostate biopsy and Gleason prostatectomy grading system: the Lahey Clinic Medical Center experience and an international meta-analysis. Eur Urol 2008;54:371-381
  3. Borghesi M, Ahmed H, Nam R, Schaeffer E, Schiavina R, Taneja S, et al. Complications after systematic, random, and image-guided prostate biopsy. Eur Urol 2017;71:353-365
  4. Rosenkrantz AB, Hindman N, Lim RP, Das K, Babb JS, Mussi TC, et al. Diffusion-weighted imaging of the prostate: comparison of b1000 and b2000 image sets for index lesion detection. J Magn Reson Imaging 2013;38:694-700
  5. Tamada T, Kanomata N, Sone T, Jo Y, Miyaji Y, Higashi H, et al. High b value (2,000 s/mm2) diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer at 3 Tesla: comparison with 1,000 s/mm2 for tumor conspicuity and discrimination of aggressiveness. PLoS One 2014;9:e96619
  6. Purysko AS, Baroni RH, Giganti F, Costa D, Renard-Penna R, Kim CK, et al. PI-RADS version 2.1: a critical review, from the AJR special series on radiology reporting and data systems. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2021;216:20-32
  7. Jendoubi S, Wagner M, Montagne S, Ezziane M, Mespoulet J, Comperat E, et al. MRI for prostate cancer: can computed high b-value DWI replace native acquisitions? Eur Radiol 2019;29:5197-5204
  8. Kordbacheh H, Seethamraju RT, Weiland E, Kiefer B, Nickel MD, Chulroek T, et al. Image quality and diagnostic accuracy of complex-averaged high b value images in diffusion-weighted MRI of prostate cancer. Abdom Radiol (NY) 2019;44:2244-2253
  9. Verma S, Sarkar S, Young J, Venkataraman R, Yang X, Bhavsar A, et al. Evaluation of the impact of computed high b-value diffusion-weighted imaging on prostate cancer detection. Abdom Radiol (NY) 2016;41:934-945
  10. Vural M, Erta,s G, Onay A, Acar O, Esen T, SaglIcan Y, et al. Conspicuity of peripheral zone prostate cancer on computed diffusion-weighted imaging: comparison of cDWI1500, cDWI2000, and cDWI3000. Biomed Res Int 2014;2014:768291
  11. Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB, Delahunt B, Srigley JR, Humphrey PA; Grading Committee. The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 2016;40:244-252
  12. Ploussard G, Epstein JI, Montironi R, Carroll PR, Wirth M, Grimm MO, et al. The contemporary concept of significant versus insignificant prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2011;60:291-303
  13. Cohen J. Weighted kappa: nominal scale agreement with provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. Psychol Bull 1968;70:213-220
  14. Cha SY, Kim E, Park SY. Why is a b-value range of 1500-2000 s/mm2 optimal for evaluating prostatic index lesions on synthetic diffusion-weighted imaging? Korean J Radiol 2021;22:922-930
  15. Bhayana R, O'Shea A, Anderson MA, Bradley WR, Gottumukkala RV, Mojtahed A, et al. PI-RADS versions 2 and 2.1: interobserver agreement and diagnostic performance in peripheral and transition zone lesions among six radiologists. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2021;217:141-151
  16. Wei CG, Zhang YY, Pan P, Chen T, Yu HC, Dai GC, et al. Diagnostic accuracy and interobserver agreement of PI-RADS version 2 and version 2.1 for the detection of transition zone prostate cancers. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2021;216:1247-1256
  17. Tamada T, Kido A, Takeuchi M, Yamamoto A, Miyaji Y, Kanomata N, et al. Comparison of PI-RADS version 2 and PI-RADS version 2.1 for the detection of transition zone prostate cancer. Eur J Radiol 2019;121:108704