Objective: The purpose was to review the diagnostic performance of the length of tumor capsular contact (LCC) on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for detecting prostate cancer extraprostatic extension (EPE). Materials and Methods: PubMed and EMBASE databases were searched up to March 24, 2019. We included diagnostic accuracy studies that evaluated LCC on MRI for EPE detection using radical prostatectomy specimen histopathology as the reference standard. Quality of studies was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool. Sensitivity and specificity were pooled and graphically presented using hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) plots. Meta-regression and subgroup analyses were conducted to explore heterogeneity. Results: Thirteen articles with 2136 patients were included. Study quality was generally good. Summary sensitivity and specificity were 0.79 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.73–0.83) and 0.67 (95% CI 0.60–0.74), respectively. Area under the HSROC was 0.81 (95% CI 0.77–0.84). Substantial heterogeneity was present among the included studies according to Cochran’s Q-test (p < 0.01) and Higgins I2 (62% and 86% for sensitivity and specificity, respectively). In terms of heterogeneity, measurement method (curvilinear vs. linear), prevalence of Gleason score ≥ 7, MRI readers’ experience, and endorectal coils were significant factors (p ≤ 0.01), whereas method to determine the LCC threshold, cutoff value, magnet strength, and publication year were not (p = 0.14–0.93). Diagnostic test accuracy estimates were comparable across all assessed MRI sequences. Conclusion Greater LCC on MRI is associated with a higher probability of prostate cancer EPE. Due to heterogeneity among the studies, further investigation is needed to establish the optimal cutoff value for each clinical setting.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the feasibility of a parameter-free intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) approach in cervical cancer, to assess the optimal b-value threshold, and to preliminarily examine differences in the derived perfusion and diffusion parameters for different histological cancer types. MATERIALS AND METHODS: After Institutional Review Board approval, 19 female patients (mean age, 54 years; age range, 37–78 years) gave consent and were enrolled in this prospective magnetic resonance imaging study. Clinical staging and biopsy results were obtained. Echo-planar diffusion weighted sequences at 13 b-values were acquired at 3 tesla field strength. Single-sliced region-of-interest IVIM analysis with adaptive b-value thresholds was applied to each tumor, yielding the optimal fit and the optimal parameters for pseudodiffusion (D*), perfusion fraction (F(p)) and diffusion coefficient (D). Monoexponential apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) was calculated for comparison with D. RESULTS: Biopsy revealed squamous cell carcinoma in 10 patients and adenocarcinoma in 9. The b-value threshold (median [interquartile range]) depended on the histological type and was 35 (22.5–50) s/mm² in squamous cell carcinoma and 150 (100–150) s/mm² in adenocarcinoma (p < 0.05). Comparing squamous cell vs. adenocarcinoma, D* (45.1 [25.1–60.4] × 10⁻³ mm²/s vs. 12.4 [10.5–21.2] × 10⁻³ mm²/s) and F(p) (7.5% [7.0–9.0%] vs. 9.9% [9.0–11.4%]) differed significantly between the subtypes (p < 0.02), whereas D did not (0.89 [0.75–0.94] × 10⁻³ mm²/s vs. 0.90 [0.82–0.97] × 10⁻³ mm²/s, p = 0.27). The residuals did not differ (0.74 [0.60–0.92] vs. 0.94 [0.67–1.01], p = 0.32). The ADC systematically underestimated the magnitude of diffusion restriction compared to D (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The parameter-free IVIM approach is feasible in cervical cancer. The b-value threshold and perfusion-related parameters depend on the tumor histology type.
Adenocarcinoma ; Biopsy ; Carcinoma, Squamous Cell ; Diffusion ; Diffusion Magnetic Resonance Imaging ; Epithelial Cells ; Ethics Committees, Research ; Female ; Humans ; Magnetic Resonance Imaging ; Perfusion ; Perfusion Imaging ; Prospective Studies ; Technology Assessment, Biomedical ; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms*