Comparison of diagnostic value of multi‑slice spiral CT and MRI for different pathological stages of prostate cancer

Sui,Yanbin; Li,Jian; Zou,Zhenxing; Shi,Yunxia; Hao,Cuijuan

doi:10.3892/ol.2019.10272

Comparison of diagnostic value of multi‑slice spiral CT and MRI for different pathological stages of prostate cancer

Authors:
- Yanbin Sui
- Jian Li
- Zhenxing Zou
- Yunxia Shi
- Cuijuan Hao
View Affiliations

Affiliations: Department of Medical Image, The Affiliated Yantai Yuhuangding Hospital of Qingdao University, Yantai, Shandong 264000, P.R. China
Published online on: April 18, 2019 https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2019.10272
Pages: 5505-5510
Copyright: © Sui et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution License.

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

Diagnostic value of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and multi‑slice spiral CT (MSCT) for different pathological stages of prostate cancer was compared. A total of 112 patients with prostate cancer who underwent surgical pathology in The Affiliated Yantai Yuhuangding Hospital of Qingdao University from February 2014 to January 2016 were enrolled as prostate cancer group, and another 100 patients who received physical health examinations during the same period as the normal group. MSCT and MRI scanning were performed on patients in both groups to analyze their diagnostic value for stages A/B and C/D of prostate cancer. Based on the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) value generated by the diffusion‑weighted imaging (DWI) in MRI, there was a significant difference in the ADC value between different stages of prostate cancer (P<0.05); the pathological stage was negatively correlated with the ADC value (r=‑0.7629, P<0.05), and the higher the stage was, the lower the ADC value was. The sensitivity was significantly higher in the MRI group than that in the MSCT group (92.0 vs. 79.5%, P<0.05), and the specificity was significantly higher in the MRI group than that in the MSCT group (90.0 vs. 70.0%, P<0.05). In the diagnosis of stage A and B of prostate cancer, the diagnostic coincidence rate was 86.7% in the MRI group, and 57.8% in the MSCT group (P<0.05); the misdiagnosis rate and missed diagnosis rate were significantly lower in the MRI group than those in the MSCT group (P<0.05). The accuracy of MRI is higher than that of MSCT in the diagnosis of early prostate cancer. Both MRI and MSCT can accurately detect stages C and D of prostate cancer, but the ADC value in MRI has great clinical significance for judging the risk of the tumor. Therefore, MRI is more valuable than MSCT in the diagnosis of patients with different pathological stages of prostate cancer.

View Figures

View References

1	Osimani M, Bellini D, Di Cristofano C, Palleschi G, Petrozza V, Carbone A and Laghi A: Perfusion MDCT of prostate cancer: Correlation of perfusion CT parameters and immunohistochemical markers of angiogenesis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 199:1042–1048. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
2	Resnick MJ, Koyama T, Fan KH, Albertsen PC, Goodman M, Hamilton AS, Hoffman RM, Potosky AL, Stanford JL, Stroup AM, et al: Long-term functional outcomes after treatment for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 368:436–445. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
3	Chen W, Zheng R, Baade PD, Zhang S, Zeng H, Bray F, Jemal A, Yu XQ and He J: Cancer statistics in China, 2015. CA Cancer J Clin. 66:115–132. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
4	Maresca KP, Hillier SM, Femia FJ, Keith D, Barone C, Joyal JL, Zimmerman CN, Kozikowski AP, Barrett JA, Eckelman WC, et al: A series of halogenated heterodimeric inhibitors of prostate specific membrane antigen (PSMA) as radiolabeled probes for targeting prostate cancer. J Med Chem. 52:347–357. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
5	Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Briers E, Cumberbatch MG, De Santis M, Fossati N, Gross T, Henry AM, Joniau S, et al: EAU-ESTRO-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. Part 1: Screening, Diagnosis, and Local Treatment with Curative Intent. Eur Urol. 71:618–629. 2017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
6	Shen G, Deng H, Hu S and Jia Z: Comparison of choline-PET/CT, MRI, SPECT, and bone scintigraphy in the diagnosis of bone metastases in patients with prostate cancer: A meta-analysis. Skeletal Radiol. 43:1503–1513. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
7	Stephenson SK, Chang EK and Marks LS: Screening and detection advances in magnetic resonance image-guided prostate biopsy. Urol Clin North Am. 41:315–326. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
8	Afshar-Oromieh A, Haberkorn U, Schlemmer HP, Fenchel M, Eder M, Eisenhut M, Hadaschik BA, Kopp-Schneider A and Röthke M: Comparison of PET/CT and PET/MRI hybrid systems using a 68Ga-labelled PSMA ligand for the diagnosis of recurrent prostate cancer: Initial experience. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 41:887–897. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
9	Tan R, Yao SZ, Huang ZQ, Li J, Li X, Tan HH and Liu QW: Combination of FDG PET/CT and contrast-enhanced MSCT in detecting lymph node metastasis of esophageal cancer. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 15:7719–7724. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
10	Tobisu K: Clinical and pathological staging of prostate cancer. Nihon Rinsho. 63:225–230. 2005.(In Japanese). PubMed/NCBI
11	Siegel RL, Miller KD and Jemal A: Cancer Statistics, 2017. CA Cancer J Clin. 67:7–30. 2017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
12	Liu Y, Gao X, Deeb D, Zhang Y, Shaw J, Valeriote FA and Gautam SC: Mycotoxin verrucarin A inhibits proliferation and induces apoptosis in prostate cancer cells by inhibiting prosurvival Akt/NF-κB/mTOR signaling. J Exp Ther Oncol. 11:251–260. 2016.PubMed/NCBI
13	Shen YC, Kang CH and Chiang PH: Efficacy of switching therapy of luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone analogue for advanced prostate cancer. Kaohsiung J Med Sci. 32:567–571. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
14	Tsai YC, Chen WY, Siu MK, Tsai HY, Yin JJ, Huang J and Liu YN: Epidermal growth factor receptor signaling promotes metastatic prostate cancer through microRNA-96-mediated downregulation of the tumor suppressor ETV6. Cancer Lett. 384:1–8. 2017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
15	Turkbey B, Mani H, Shah V, Rastinehad AR, Bernardo M, Pohida T, Pang Y, Daar D, Benjamin C, McKinney YL, et al: Multiparametric 3T prostate magnetic resonance imaging to detect cancer: Histopathological correlation using prostatectomy specimens processed in customized magnetic resonance imaging based molds. J Urol. 186:1818–1824. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
16	Bell N, Connor Gorber S, Shane A, Joffres M, Singh H, Dickinson J, Shaw E, Dunfield L and Tonelli M; Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care, : Recommendations on screening for prostate cancer with the prostate-specific antigen test. CMAJ. 186:1225–1234. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
17	Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, Hao Y, Xu J and Thun MJ: Cancer statistics, 2009. CA Cancer J Clin. 59:225–249. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
18	Zhang X, Quan X, Lu S, Huang F, Yang J, Chan Q and Lin T: The clinical value of dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging at 3.0T to detect prostate cancer. J Int Med Res. 42:1077–1084. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
19	Frauscher F, Halpern EJ and Klauser A: Use of MRI to detect lymph-node metastases in prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 349:1185–1186. 2003. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
20	Eiber M, Holzapfel K, Ganter C, Epple K, Metz S, Geinitz H, Kübler H, Gaa J, Rummeny EJ and Beer AJ: Whole-body MRI including diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) for patients with recurring prostate cancer: Technical feasibility and assessment of lesion conspicuity in DWI. J Magn Reson Imaging. 33:1160–1170. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
21	Volkin D, Turkbey B, Hoang AN, Rais-Bahrami S, Yerram N, Walton-Diaz A, Nix JW, Wood BJ, Choyke PL and Pinto PA: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and subsequent MRI/ultrasonography fusion-guided biopsy increase the detection of anteriorly located prostate cancers. BJU Int. 114:E43–E49. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
22	Tanimoto A, Nakashima J, Kohno H, Shinmoto H and Kuribayashi S: Prostate cancer screening: The clinical value of diffusion-weighted imaging and dynamic MR imaging in combination with T2-weighted imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging. 25:146–152. 2007. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
23	Anwar SS, Anwar Khan Z, Shoaib Hamid R, Haroon F, Sayani R, Beg M and Khattak YJ: Assessment of apparent diffusion coefficient values as predictor of aggressiveness in peripheral zone prostate cancer: Comparison with Gleason score. ISRN Radiol. 2014:2634172014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
24	Eschmann SM, Pfannenberg AC, Rieger A, Aschoff P, Müller M, Paulsen F, Anastasiadis A, Claussen CD, Bares R and Schlemmer HP: Comparison of 11C-choline-PET/CT and whole body-MRI for staging of prostate cancer. Nuklearmedizin. 46:161–168; quiz N47-N48. 2007. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
25	Panebianco V, Sciarra A, Lisi D, Galati F, Buonocore V, Catalano C, Gentile V, Laghi A and Passariello R: Prostate cancer: 1HMRS-DCEMR at 3T versus [(18)F]choline PET/CT in the detection of local prostate cancer recurrence in men with biochemical progression after radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP). Eur J Radiol. 81:700–708. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI