Correlation of diffusion tensor imaging parameters and Gleason scores of prostate cancer

Tian,Weizhong; Zhang,Ji; Tian,Fangzheng; Shen,Junkang; Niu,Tianli; He,Guohua; Yu,Hong

doi:10.3892/etm.2017.5363

Correlation of diffusion tensor imaging parameters and Gleason scores of prostate cancer

Authors:
- Weizhong Tian
- Ji Zhang
- Fangzheng Tian
- Junkang Shen
- Tianli Niu
- Guohua He
- Hong Yu
View Affiliations

Affiliations: Department of Radiology, Taizhou People's Hospital, Taizhou, Jiangsu 225300, P.R. China, Department of Radiology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou, Jiangsu 215004, P.R. China, Department of Urinary Surgery, Taizhou People's Hospital, Taizhou, Jiangsu 225300, P.R. China, Department of Urinary Surgery, Taizhou Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Taizhou, Jiangsu 225300, P.R. China, Department of Pathology, Taizhou People's Hospital, Taizhou, Jiangsu 225300, P.R. China
Published online on: October 24, 2017 https://doi.org/10.3892/etm.2017.5363
Pages: 351-356

Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Metrics: Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Cited By (CrossRef): 0 citations Loading Articles...

Abstract

The aim of the present study was to explore the association between the parameters of diffusion tensor imaging (DTI), including fractional anisotropy (FA) values, apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values and the diffusion tensor tractography (DTT) map, with the Gleason score of prostate cancer (PCa). A retrospective study of 50 cases of PCa confirmed by biopsy or surgical pathology was performed. Conventional magnetic resonance imaging and DTI scans were conducted in these cases. The 50 cases of PCa were divided into three groups, including low, intermediate and high grade, according to the Gleason score. Post‑DTI processing was performed using Neuro 3D software, in order to measure the FA and ADC values, and map the prostate fibers. Differences in FA and ADC values among the various PCa groups were examined using analysis of variance, while the correlation of FA and ADC values with the Gleason score was studied using Pearson correlation analysis. The obtained DTT map clearly demonstrated the spatial structure of the prostate fibers. The fibers of the cancer area were dense without interruption in the low‑grade group, sparse and disordered in the intermediate‑grade group, and were disordered, sparse or even absent in the high‑grade group. The FA values were 0.284±0.313, 0.293±0.347 and 0.369±0.347, respectively, with statistically significant differences observed among the three groups (F=234.533; P<0.05) and between each group (P<0.05). In addition, the FA value of PCa was positively correlated with the Gleason score (r=0.884; P<0.05). The ADC values of the low‑, intermediate‑ and high‑grade groups were 1.070±0.072x10‑3, 0.961±0.081x10‑3 and 0.821±0.048x10‑3, respectively, which demonstrated statistically significant differences among the three groups (F=49.987; P<0.05) and between each group (P<0.05). Furthermore, the ADC values of PCa were negatively correlated with Gleason score (r=‑0.810; P<0.05). In conclusion, there was an association between DTI parameters and Gleason score, which may be used to evaluate the grading and prognosis of PCa.

View Figures

View References

1	Siegel RL, Miller KD and Jemal A: Cancer statistics, 2017, CA Cancer J Clin. 67:1–30. 2017.
2	Wang YJ, Fu ZX, Wang J, et al: Incidence and mortality of prostate cancer among residents in Luwan district of Shanghai, 2004–2011. Chin Cancer. 26:438–441. 2017.
3	Heidenreich A, Bastian PJ, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Joniau S, van der Kwast T, Mason M, Matveev V, Wiegel T, Zattoni F, et al: EAU guidelines on prostate cancer Part 1 Screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent update 2013. Eur Urol. 65:124–137. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
4	Chinese Journal of Radiology in the diagnosis of prostatic diseases, Chinese Journal of Radiology, editorial board of the Chinese Journal of radiology: MR examination and diagnosis of prostate cancer. Chin J Radiol. 48:531–534. 2014.
5	Bazot M, Bharwani N, Huchon C, Kinkel K, Cunha TM, Guerra A, Manganaro L, Buñesch L, Kido A, Togashi K, et al: European society of urogenital radiology (ESUR) guidelines: MR imaging of pelvic endometriosis. Eur Radiol. 27:2765–2775. 2017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
6	Liao LH, Wang SH and Shen JH: The formation, development and application of Gleason grading system for prostate cancer. J Diag Pathol. 19:309–312. 2012.
7	Kagebayashi Y, Nakai Y, Matsumoto Y, Samma S, Miyasaka T and Nakagawa H: Utility of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging and apparent diffusion coefficient in detection of prostate cancer and prediction of pathological Gleason score. Hinyokika Kiyo. 58:405–408. 2012.(In Japanese). PubMed/NCBI
8	Wu CJ, Wang Q, Li H, Wang XN, Liu XS, Shi HB and Zhang YD: DWI-associated entire-tumor histogram analysis for the differentiation of low-grade prostate cancer from intermediate-high-grade prostate cancer. Abdom Imag. 40:3214–3221. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar
9	Caivano R, Rabasco P, Lotumolo A, Cirillo P, D'Antuono F, Zandolino A, Villonio A, Macarini L, Salvatore M and Cammarota A: Comparison between Gleason score and apparent diffusion coefficient obtained from diffusion-weighted imaging of prostate cancer patients. Cancer Invest. 31:625–629. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
10	Bammer R, Acar B and Moseley ME: In vivo MR tractography using diffusion imaging. Eur J Radiol. 45:223–234. 2003. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
11	Sinha S and Sinha U: In vivo diffusion tensor imaging of the human prostate. Magn Reson Med. 52:530–537. 2004. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
12	Gibbs P, Pickles MD and Turnbull LW: Diffusion imaging of the prostate at 3.0 tesla. Invest Radiol. 41:185–188. 2006. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
13	Basser PJ, Mattiello J and LeBihan D: MR diffusion tensor spectroscopy and imaging. Biophys J. 66:259–267. 1994. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
14	Le Bihan D, Mangin JF, Poupon C, Clark CA, Pappata S, Molko N and Chabriat H: Diffusion tensor imaging: Concepts and applications. J Magn Reson Imaging. 13:534–546. 2001. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
15	Wang S, Kim SJ, Poptani H, Woo JH, Mohan S, Jin R, Voluck MR, O'Rourke DM, Wolf RL, Melhem ER and Kim S: Diagnostic utility of diffusion tensor imaging in differentiating glioblastomas from brain metastases. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 35:928–934. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
16	Schenk P, Siebert T, Hiepe P, Güllmar D, Reichenbach JR, Wick C, Blickhan R and Böl M: Determination of three-dimensional muscle architectures: Validation of the DTI-based fiber tractography method by manual digitization. J Anat. 223:61–68. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
17	Gürses B, Tasdelen N, Yencilek F, Kılıckesmez NO, Alp T, Fırat Z, Albayrak MS, Uluğ AM and Gürmen AN: Diagnostic utility of DTI in prostate cancer. Eur J Radiol. 79:172–176. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
18	Gürses B, Kabakci N, Kovanlikaya A, Firat Z, Bayram A, Uluğ AM and Kovanlikaya I: Diffusion tensor imaging of the normal prostate at 3 Tesla. Eur Radiol. 18:716–721. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
19	Xia G, Gong H, Zeng X, et al: MR diffusion tensor imaging in the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Chin J Radiol. 46:526–528. 2012.
20	Takayama Y, Kishimoto R, Hanaoka S, Nonaka H, Kandatsu S, Tsuji H, Tsujii H, Ikehira H and Obata T: ADC value and diffusion tensor imaging of prostate cancer: Changes in carbon-ion radiotherapy. J Magne Resonance Imag. 27:1331–1335. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar
21	Woodfield CA, Tung GA, Grand DJ, Pezzullo JA, Machan JT and Renzulli JF II: Diffusion-weighted MRI of peripheral zone prostate cancer: Comparison of tumor apparent diffusion coefficient with Gleason score and percentage of tumor on core biopsy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 194:W316–W322. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
22	Li L, Margolis DJ, Deng M, Cai J, Yuan L, Feng Z, Min X, Hu Z, Hu D, Liu J and Wang L: Correlation of gleason scores with magnetic resonance diffusion tensor imaging in peripheral zone prostate cancer. J Magn Reson Imaging. 42:460–467. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
23	Gong T, Yuan SH, Li LL, et al: Study on the correlation between prostate cancer DTI parameters and Gleason score. Med Imag J. 24:574–577. 2014.
24	Wang Q, Gong T and Wang XZ: 3.0T diffusion tensor imaging in the evaluation of prostate cancer Gleason score value. J Clin Radiol. 34:581–585. 2015.