Article Sidebar

pdf
Date Published: 14/01/2025
Abstract Views: 11
Views pdf: 5
DOI: https://doi.org/10.55046/vjrnm.56.1167.2024
Issue
No. 56 (2024)
Section
Scientific research
How to Cite
Phạm, T. H., Võ, N. H. T., Phạm, N. H., & Trương, T. P. T. (2024). CORRELATION BETWEEN APPARENT DIFFUSION COEFFICIENT ON DIFFUSION-WEIGHTED IMAGING AND PROSTATE-SPECIFIC ANTIGEN LEVELS WITH GLEASON HISTOLOGICAL GRADING IN PROSTATE CANCER. Vietnamese Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, 56, 48-55. https://doi.org/10.55046/vjrnm.56.1167.2024

CORRELATION BETWEEN APPARENT DIFFUSION COEFFICIENT ON DIFFUSION-WEIGHTED IMAGING AND PROSTATE-SPECIFIC ANTIGEN LEVELS WITH GLEASON HISTOLOGICAL GRADING IN PROSTATE CANCER

Thái Hưng Phạm, Ngọc Huy Thông Võ , Ngọc Hoa Phạm, Thị Phương Thảo Trương1
1 Đại học Y dược TP Hồ Chí Minh

Main Article Content

Abstract

Objective: To investigate the correlation between the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and Gleason Score (GS); as well as the performance of these metrics in differentiating between clinically insignificant and significant prostate cancer (Pca).


Subject and method: A retrospective cross-sectional study was carried out at the Ho Chi Minh City Medical University Center, involving 162 patients diagnosed with histologically confirmed prostate carcinoma. Region-of-interest-based measurements were employed to evaluate the mean ADC of defined lesions and of contralateral normal tissue, then calculated intrapatient normalized ADC (nADC: ADC of lesions divided by ADC of contralateral normal tissue).


Result: ADC and nADC exhibited strong negative correlations with GS (r=-0.66 and r=-0.77, p<0.05; respectively), while PSA and PSA density (PSAd) showed moderate positive correlations (r=0.35 and r=0.33, p<0.05; respectively). AUC values for distinguishing GS6 from GS>6 were 0.837 (ADC), 0.929 (nADC), 0.701 (PSA), and 0.703 (PSAd). When distinguishing GS≤7(3+4) and GS≥7(4+3), AUC values changed to 0.847 (ADC), 0.914 (nADC), 0.723 (PSA), and 0.731 (PSAd). An nADC threshold of 0.47 achieved accurate differentiation between GS6 and GS>6 with 80.9% accuracy, 96.8% sensitivity, and 76.7% specificity. Similarly, distinguishing GS≤7(3+4) from GS≥7(4+3) with the same nADC threshold resulted in 87.0% accuracy, 87.3% sensitivity, and 86.9% specificity.


Conclusion: ADC showed stronger correlation with GS and proved to be a more effective predictor of prostate cancer malignancy compared to PSA.

Keywords

prostate cancer, apparent diffusion coefficient, prostatespecific antigen, Gleason score

Article Details

References

1. Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, et al. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA: a cancer journal for clinicians. May 2021;71(3):209-249. doi:10.3322/caac.21660
2. Epstein JIJTJou. An update of the Gleason grading system. 2010;183(2):433-440.
3. Epstein JI, Allsbrook Jr WC, Amin MB, Egevad LL, pathology IGCJTAjos. The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma. 2005;29(9):1228-1242.
4. Romero-Otero J, García-Gómez B, Duarte-Ojeda JM, et al. Active surveillance for prostate cancer. 2016;23(3):211- 218. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/iju.13016
5. Verma S, Rajesh A, Morales H, et al. Assessment of aggressiveness of prostate cancer: correlation of apparent diffusion coefficient with histologic grade after radical prostatectomy. 2011;196(2):374.
6. Etzioni R, Gulati R, Cooperberg MR, Penson DM, Weiss NS, Thompson IM. Limitations of basing screening policies on screening trials: The US Preventive Services Task Force and Prostate Cancer Screening. Medical care. Apr 2013;51(4):295-300. doi:10.1097/MLR.0b013e31827da979
7. Wu X, Reinikainen P, Vanhanen A, et al. Correlation between apparent diffusion coefficient value on diffusionweighted MR imaging and Gleason score in prostate cancer. Diagnostic and Interventional Imaging. 2017/01/01/2017;98(1):63-71. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diii.2016.08.009
8. Jyoti R, Jain TP, Haxhimolla H, Liddell H, Barrett SE. Correlation of apparent diffusion coefficient ratio on 3.0 T MRI with prostate cancer Gleason score. European journal of radiology open. 2018;5:58-63. doi:10.1016/j. ejro.2018.03.002
9. Kus AA. The utility of ADC parameters in the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer by 3.0-Tesla diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging. Polish journal of radiology. 2021;86:e262-e268. doi:10.5114/ pjr.2021.106071
10. Noor Kathem Nee’ma Al-Waely AMJA-M, Zainab Kassim Wadi. Role of diffusion weighted MRI and ADC value in descrimination between low versus intermediate and high Gleason scores in peripheral zone prostate cancer. 2021;doi:https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4424411
11. Delahunt B, Miller RJ, Srigley JR, Evans AJ, Samaratunga H. Gleason grading: past, present and future. 2012;60(1):75-86. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2559.2011.04003.x
12. Park HJ, Ha YS, Park SY, et al. Incidence of upgrading and upstaging in patients with low-volume Gleason score 3+4 prostate cancers at biopsy: finding a new group eligible for active surveillance. Urologia internationalis. 2013;90(3):301-5. doi:10.1159/000345292
13. Pierorazio PM, Walsh PC, Partin AW, Epstein JI. Prognostic Gleason grade grouping: data based on the modified Gleason scoring system. BJU international. May 2013;111(5):753-60. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11611.x
14. Udoh EA. Relationship between Serum Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) and Gleason Score in Patients Diagnosed with Prostate Cancer. A Hospital Based Study. EAS Journal of Medicine and Surgery. 2020;2(2)
15. Yusim I, Krenawi M, Mazor E, Novack V, Mabjeesh NJ. The use of prostate specific antigen density to predict clinically significant prostate cancer. Scientific Reports. 2020/11/17 2020;10(1):20015. doi:10.1038/s41598-020- 76786-9