Rotating frame relaxation imaging of prostate cancer: Repeatability, cancer detection, and Gleason score prediction
Corresponding Author
Ivan Jambor
Department of Diagnostic Radiology, University of Turku, Turku, Finland
Correspondence to: Ivan Jambor, M.D., Department of Diagnostic Radiology, University of Turku, Kiinamyllynkatu 4-8, P.O. Box 52, FI-20521 Turku, Finland. E-mail: [email protected]Search for more papers by this authorMarko Pesola
Department of Diagnostic Radiology, University of Turku, Turku, Finland
Search for more papers by this authorPekka Taimen
Department of Pathology, University of Turku and Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland
Search for more papers by this authorHarri Merisaari
Department of Information Technology, University of Turku, Turku, Finland
Turku PET Centre, University of Turku, Turku, Finland
Search for more papers by this authorPeter J. Boström
Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland
Search for more papers by this authorHeikki Minn
Department of Oncology and Radiotherapy, Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland
Search for more papers by this authorTimo Liimatainen
Department of Biotechnology and Molecular Medicine, A.I. Virtanen Institute for Molecular Sciences, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland
Search for more papers by this authorHannu J. Aronen
Department of Diagnostic Radiology, University of Turku, Turku, Finland
Medical Imaging Centre of Southwest Finland, Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Ivan Jambor
Department of Diagnostic Radiology, University of Turku, Turku, Finland
Correspondence to: Ivan Jambor, M.D., Department of Diagnostic Radiology, University of Turku, Kiinamyllynkatu 4-8, P.O. Box 52, FI-20521 Turku, Finland. E-mail: [email protected]Search for more papers by this authorMarko Pesola
Department of Diagnostic Radiology, University of Turku, Turku, Finland
Search for more papers by this authorPekka Taimen
Department of Pathology, University of Turku and Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland
Search for more papers by this authorHarri Merisaari
Department of Information Technology, University of Turku, Turku, Finland
Turku PET Centre, University of Turku, Turku, Finland
Search for more papers by this authorPeter J. Boström
Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland
Search for more papers by this authorHeikki Minn
Department of Oncology and Radiotherapy, Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland
Search for more papers by this authorTimo Liimatainen
Department of Biotechnology and Molecular Medicine, A.I. Virtanen Institute for Molecular Sciences, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland
Search for more papers by this authorHannu J. Aronen
Department of Diagnostic Radiology, University of Turku, Turku, Finland
Medical Imaging Centre of Southwest Finland, Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland
Search for more papers by this authorAbstract
Purpose
To investigate relaxation along a fictitious field (RAFF) and continuous wave (cw) T1ρ imaging of prostate cancer (PCa) in the terms of repeatability, PCa detection, and characterization.
Methods
Thirty-six patients (PSA 11.6 ± 7.6 ng/mL, mean ± standard deviation) with histologically confirmed PCa underwent two repeated 3T MR examinations using surface array coils before prostatectomy. Relaxation along fictitious field, cw T1ρ, and T2 relaxation times (TRAFF, T1ρcw, T2) were measured and averaged over regions of interest placed in PCa, normal peripheral zone (PZ), and normal central gland (CG) positioned using whole-mount prostatectomy sections and anatomical T2-weighted images. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis with area under the curve (AUC) was calculated to distinguish PCa from PZ/CG and PCa with Gleason score (GS) of 3+3 from GS of 3+4/≥3+4.
Results
TRAFF and T1ρcw relaxation times were repeatable with coefficients of repeatability as a percentage of median value in the range of 7.8–23.2%. AUC (mean, 95% confidence interval) in the differentiation of PCa with GS of 3+3 from PCa with CS of ≥3+4 were 0.88 (0.72–0.99), 0.69 (0.46–0.90), and 0.68 (0.45–0.88), for TRAFF, T1ρcw, and T2, respectively.
Conclusion
In quantitative region of interest based analysis, TRAFF outperformed T1ρcw and T2 in PCa detection and characterization. Magn Reson Med 75:337–344, 2016. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Supporting Information
Additional Supporting Information may be found in the online version of this article.
| Filename | Description |
|---|---|
| mrm25647-sup-0001-suppinfosup1.pdf18.2 MB |
Table S1 Patients characteristics Table S2 Specific absorption rate Supporting Figures S1–S36: Positions of regions of interest placed in prostate cancer, peripheral zone, and central gland. |
Please note: The publisher is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.
REFERENCES
- 1 Hricak H, Choyke PL, Eberhardt SC, Leibel SA, Scardino PT. Imaging prostate cancer: a multidisciplinary perspective. Radiology 2007; 243: 28–53.
- 2 Hoeks CM, Barentsz JO, Hambrock T, et al. Prostate cancer: multiparametric MR imaging for detection, localization, and staging. Radiology 2011; 261: 46–66.
- 3 Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin 2012; 62: 10–29.
- 4 Johnson LM, Turkbey B, Figg WD, Choyke PL. Multiparametric MRI in prostate cancer management. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2014; 11: 346–353.
- 5 Aronen HJ, Ramadan UA, Peltonen TK, Markkola AT, Tanttu JI, Jääskeläinen J, Häkkinen AM, Sepponen R. 3D spin-lock imaging of human gliomas. Magn Reson Imaging 1999; 17: 1001–1010.
- 6 Ramadan UA, Markkola AT, Halavaara J, Tanttu J, Hakkinen AM, Aronen HJ. On- and off-resonance spin-lock MR imaging of normal human brain at 0.1 T: possibilities to modify image contrast. Magn Reson Imaging 1998; 16: 1191–1199.
- 7 Michaeli S, Oz G, Sorce DJ, Garwood M, Ugurbil K, Majestic S, Tuite P. Assessment of brain iron and neuronal integrity in patients with Parkinson's disease using novel MRI contrasts. Mov Disord 2007; 22: 334–340.
- 8 Borthakur A, Mellon E, Niyogi S, Witschey W, Kneeland JB, Reddy R. Sodium and T1rho MRI for molecular and diagnostic imaging of articular cartilage. NMR Biomed 2006; 19: 781–821.
- 9 Hakumaki JM, Grohn OH, Tyynela K, Valonen P, Yla-Herttuala S, Kauppinen RA. Early gene therapy-induced apoptotic response in BT4C gliomas by magnetic resonance relaxation contrast T1 in the rotating frame. Cancer Gene Ther 2002; 9: 338–345.
- 10 Kettunen MI, Sierra A, Narvainen MJ, et al. Low spin-lock field T1 relaxation in the rotating frame as a sensitive MR imaging marker for gene therapy treatment response in rat glioma. Radiology 2007; 243: 796–803.
- 11 Liimatainen T, Sierra A, Hanson T, Sorce DJ, Ylä-Herttuala S, Garwood M, Michaeli S, Gröhn O. Glioma cell density in a rat gene therapy model gauged by water relaxation rate along a fictitious magnetic field. Magn Reson Med 2012; 67: 269–277.
- 12 Liimatainen T, Sorce DJ, O'Connell R, Garwood M, Michaeli S. MRI contrast from relaxation along a fictitious field (RAFF). Magn Reson Med 2010; 64: 983–994.
- 13 Liimatainen T, Hakkarainen H, Mangia S, Huttunen JM, Storino C, Idiyatullin D, Sorce D, Garwood M, Michaeli S. MRI contrasts in high rank rotating frames. Magn Reson Med 2015; 73: 254–262.
- 14 Merisaari H, Jambor I. Optimization of b-value distribution for four mathematical models of prostate cancer diffusion-weighted imaging using b values up to 2000 s/mm: simulation and repeatability study. Magn Reson Med 2015; 73: 1954–1969.
- 15 Jambor I, Merisaari H, Taimen P, Boström P, Minn H, Pesola M, Aronen HJ. Evaluation of different mathematical models for diffusion-weighted imaging of normal prostate and prostate cancer using high b-values: a repeatability study. Magn Reson Med 2015; 73: 1988–1998.
- 16
Pruessmann KP,
Weiger M,
Scheidegger MB,
Boesiger P. SENSE: sensitivity encoding for fast MRI. Magn Reson Med 1999; 42: 952–962.
10.1002/(SICI)1522-2594(199911)42:5<952::AID-MRM16>3.0.CO;2-S CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
- 17 Yarnykh VL. Actual flip-angle imaging in the pulsed steady state: a method for rapid three-dimensional mapping of the transmitted radiofrequency field. Magn Reson Med 2007; 57: 192–200.
- 18 Koh DM, Blackledge M, Collins DJ, et al. Reproducibility and changes in the apparent diffusion coefficients of solid tumours treated with combretastatin A4 phosphate and bevacizumab in a two-centre phase I clinical trial. Eur Radiol 2009; 19: 2728–2738.
- 19 Bland JM, Altman DG. Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res 1999; 8: 135–160.
- 20 Shrout PE, Fleiss JL. Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull 1979; 86: 420–428.
- 21
Carpenter J,
Bithell J. Bootstrap confidence intervals: when, which, what? A practical guide for medical statisticians. Stat Med 2000; 19: 1141–1164.
10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(20000515)19:9<1141::AID-SIM479>3.0.CO;2-F CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
- 22 Robin X, Turck N, Hainard A, et al. pROC: an open-source package for R and S+ to analyze and compare ROC curves. BMC Bioinformatics 2011; 12: 77.
- 23 Hanley JA, McNeil BJ. A method of comparing the areas under receiver operating characteristic curves derived from the same cases. Radiology 1983; 148: 839–843.
- 24 Epstein JI. An update of the Gleason grading system. J Urol 2010; 183: 433–440.
- 25 Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC Jr, Amin MB, Egevad LL. The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 2005; 29: 1228–1242.
- 26 de Bazelaire CM, Duhamel GD, Rofsky NM, Alsop DC. MR imaging relaxation times of abdominal and pelvic tissues measured in vivo at 3.0 T: preliminary results. Radiology 2004; 230: 652–659.
- 27 Zelhof B, Pickles M, Liney G, Gibbs P, Rodrigues G, Kraus S, Turnbull L. Correlation of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance data with cellularity in prostate cancer. BJU Int 2009; 103: 883–888.
- 28 Liu W, Turkbey B, Senegas J, Remmele S, Xu S, Kruecker J, Bernardo M, Wood BJ, Pinto PA, Choyke PL. Accelerated T2 mapping for characterization of prostate cancer. Magn Reson Med 2011; 65: 1400–1406.
- 29 Simpkin CJ, Morgan VA, Giles SL, Riches SF, Parker C, deSouza NM. Relationship between T2 relaxation and apparent diffusion coefficient in malignant and non-malignant prostate regions and the effect of peripheral zone fractional volume. Br J Radiol 2013; 86: 20120469.
- 30 Bill-Axelson A, Holmberg L, Filen F, et al. Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting in localized prostate cancer: the Scandinavian prostate cancer group-4 randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 2008; 100: 1144–1154.
- 31 Bjartell A. Words of wisdom. The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma. Eur Urol 2006; 49: 758–759.
- 32 Kattan MW, Scardino PT. Prediction of progression: nomograms of clinical utility. Clin Prostate Cancer 2002; 1: 90–96.
- 33 D'Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, Fondurulia J, Chen MH, Tomaszewski JE, Wein A. The combination of preoperative prostate specific antigen and postoperative pathological findings to predict prostate specific antigen outcome in clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol 1998; 160: 2096–2101.
- 34 Partin AW, Mangold LA, Lamm DM, Walsh PC, Epstein JI, Pearson JD. Contemporary update of prostate cancer staging nomograms (Partin Tables) for the new millennium. Urology 2001; 58: 843–848.
- 35 Cookson MS, Fleshner NE, Soloway SM, Fair WR. Correlation between Gleason score of needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimen: accuracy and clinical implications. J Urol 1997; 157: 559–562.
- 36 Nepple KG, Wahls TL, Hillis SL, Joudi FN. Gleason score and laterality concordance between prostate biopsy and prostatectomy specimens. Int Braz J Urol 2009; 35: 559–564.
- 37 Steinberg DM, Sauvageot J, Piantadosi S, Epstein JI. Correlation of prostate needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy Gleason grade in academic and community settings. Am J Surg Pathol 1997; 21: 566–576.
- 38 Rajinikanth A, Manoharan M, Soloway CT, Civantos FJ, Soloway MS. Trends in Gleason score: concordance between biopsy and prostatectomy over 15 years. Urology 2008; 72: 177–182.
- 39 Boesen L, Chabanova E, Logager V, Balslev I, Thomsen HS. Apparent diffusion coefficient ratio correlates significantly with prostate cancer gleason score at final pathology. J Magn Reson Imaging 2015; 42: 446–453.
- 40 Oto A, Yang C, Kayhan A, Tretiakova M, Antic T, Schmid-Tannwald C, Eggener S, Karczmar GS, Stadler WM. Diffusion-weighted and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI of prostate cancer: correlation of quantitative MR parameters with Gleason score and tumor angiogenesis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2011; 197: 1382–1390.
- 41 Peng Y, Jiang Y, Yang C, Brown JB, Antic T, Sethi I, Schmid-Tannwald C, Giger ML, Eggener SE, Oto A. Quantitative analysis of multiparametric prostate MR images: differentiation between prostate cancer and normal tissue and correlation with Gleason score--a computer-aided diagnosis development study. Radiology 2013; 267: 787–796.
- 42 Turkbey B, Shah VP, Pang Y, et al. Is apparent diffusion coefficient associated with clinical risk scores for prostate cancers that are visible on 3-T MR images? Radiology 2011; 258: 488–495.
- 43 Donati OF, Mazaheri Y, Afaq A, Vargas HA, Zheng J, Moskowitz CS, Hricak H, Akin O. Prostate cancer aggressiveness: assessment with whole-lesion histogram analysis of the apparent diffusion coefficient. Radiology 2014; 271: 143–152.
- 44 Rosenkrantz AB, Triolo MJ, Melamed J, Rusinek H, Taneja SS, Deng FM. Whole-lesion apparent diffusion coefficient metrics as a marker of percentage Gleason 4 component within Gleason 7 prostate cancer at radical prostatectomy. J Magn Reson Imaging 2015; 41: 708–714.
- 45 Itou Y, Nakanishi K, Narumi Y, Nishizawa Y, Tsukuma H. Clinical utility of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values in patients with prostate cancer: can ADC values contribute to assess the aggressiveness of prostate cancer? J Magn Reson Imaging 2011; 33: 167–172.
- 46 Tamada T, Sone T, Jo Y, Yamamoto A, Yamashita T, Egashira N, Imai S, Fukunaga M. Prostate cancer: relationships between postbiopsy hemorrhage and tumor detectability at MR diagnosis. Radiology 2008; 248: 531–539.
- 47 Kobus T, Vos PC, Hambrock T, De Rooij M, Hulsbergen-Van de Kaa CA, Barentsz JO, Heerschap A, Scheenen TW. Prostate cancer aggressiveness: in vivo assessment of MR spectroscopy and diffusion-weighted imaging at 3 T. Radiology 2012; 265: 457–467.
- 48 Zakian KL, Sircar K, Hricak H, et al. Correlation of proton MR spectroscopic imaging with gleason score based on step-section pathologic analysis after radical prostatectomy. Radiology 2005; 234: 804–814.
- 49 Scheenen TW, Heijmink SW, Roell SA, Hulsbergen-Van de Kaa CA, Knipscheer BC, Witjes JA, Barentsz JO, Heerschap A. Three-dimensional proton MR spectroscopy of human prostate at 3 T without endorectal coil: feasibility. Radiology 2007; 245: 507–516.
- 50 Jambor I, Borra R, Kemppainen J, et al. Functional imaging of localized prostate cancer aggressiveness using 11C-acetate PET/CT and 1H-MR spectroscopy. J Nucl Med 2010; 51: 1676–1683.
- 51 Liimatainen T, Mangia S, Ling W, Ellermann J, Sorce DJ, Garwood M, Michaeli S. Relaxation dispersion in MRI induced by fictitious magnetic fields. J Magn Reson 2011; 209: 269–276.
