Ultra-high b value diffusion-weighted imaging and intravoxel incoherent motion imaging in diagnosis of prostatic neoplasms
10.13929/j.issn.1003-3289.2020.08.024
- VernacularTitle: 超高b值扩散加权成像及体素内不相干运动成像用于前列腺癌诊断
- Author:
Ju ZENG
1
Author Information
1. Department of Medical Imaging, Sichuan Provincial Orthopedics Hospital
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Diagnosis;
Diffusion magnetic resonance imaging;
Intravoxel irrelevant motion;
Prostatic neoplasms
- From:
Chinese Journal of Medical Imaging Technology
2020;36(8):1220-1224
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective: To investigate the value of ultra-high b value diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) and intravoxel irrelevant motion (IVIM) imaging in differential diagnosis of prostate cancer (PCa) and benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH) and predicting pathological grade of PCa. Methods: Totally 55 patients who underwent prostate IVIM-DWI (b=0, 50, 100, 150, 200, 400, 600, 800, 1 000, 1 500, 2 000 s/mm2) and were pathologically confirmed as PCa (PCa group) or BPH (BPH group) were collected. Patients in PCa group were divided into low score subgroup or high score subgroup according to the pathological grading. The differences of ADC value, D value, D* value and f value were compared between PCa and BPH groups as well as low score subgroup and high score subgroup. ROC curve for differential diagnosis of PCa and BPH and predicting PCa pathological grading were drawn to evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of the indexes significantly different between PCa and BPH or low and high score subgroups of PCa, and the correlation between parameters and Gleason scores in PCa group were analyzed. Results: A total of 44 patients were enrolled, including 24 cases in PCa group and 20 in BPH group. ADC value and D value were statistically different (t=-14.24, -10.87, both P<0.01), while AUC of ADC value (0.99) and D value (0.98) for differentiating PCa and BPH were not between 2 groups (Z=1.18, P=0.24). In PCa group, ADC value and D value were statistically different (t=2.28, 3.86, both P<0.05), and AUC of ADC value (0.76) and D value (0.88) for predicting pathological grading of PCa were also statistically different between 2 subgroups (Z=2.23, P=0.02). ADC value (r=-0.44)and D value (r=-0.56) were both negatively correlated with Gleason score (both P<0.05) in PCa gruop. Conclusion: Ultra-high b value DWI and IVIM imaging had certain application value in PCa. For differential diagnosis of PCa and BPH, the efficiency of ADC value was comparable to that of D value, while for predicting pathological grading of PCa, the efficiency of D value was better than that of ADC value.
