Dynamic Contrast-enhanced MR Imaging Curve-type Analysis: Is It Helpful in the Differentiation of Prostate Cancer from Healthy Peripheral Zone?
- 1 May 2015
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) in Radiology
- Vol. 275 (2), 448-457
- https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.14140847
Abstract
Purpose To evaluate the performance and interobserver agreement of qualitative dynamic contrast material enhanced magnetic resonance (MR) imaging curve analysis as described in the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) for the differentiation of prostate cancer (PCa) from healthy prostatic tissue in the peripheral zone (PZ). Materials and Methods This Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act–compliant institutional review board–approved retrospective analysis included 120 consecutive pretreatment dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MR imaging PCa examinations. Regions of interest (ROIs) were placed in 251 spots, including 95 (37.8%) in healthy PZ tissue and 156 (62.2%) in PCa, by using detailed histologic–multiparametric MR correlation review. Three radiologists reviewed the DCE time curves and assessed qualitative curve types as described in PI-RADS: type 1 (progressive), type 2 (plateau), or type 3 (washout). Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was used to assess accuracy in differentiating PCa from healthy tissue on the basis of curve type, and κ was calculated to assess interobserver agreement. Results Receiver operating characteristic curves were similar for all observers, but mean areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve were poor (0.58 ± 0.04 [standard deviation] to 0.63 ± 0.04). No differences in accuracy were seen for varying DCE time resolution and imaging length. Observer agreement in assessment of type 3 versus types 1 or 2 curves was substantial (0.66 < κ < 0.79), better for PCa ROIs than for healthy-tissue ROIs. The agreement between type 1 and type 2 curves was moderate to substantial (0.49 < κ < 0.78). Conclusion Qualitative DCE MR imaging time–curve-type analysis performs poorly for differentiation of PCa from healthy prostatic tissue. Interobserver agreement is excellent in assessment of type 3 curves but only moderate for type 1 and 2 curves. © RSNA, 2015Keywords
This publication has 36 references indexed in Scilit:
- Accuracy of Multiparametric MRI for Prostate Cancer Detection: A Meta-AnalysisAmerican Journal of Roentgenology, 2014
- Prostate Cancer: Comparison of Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced MRI Techniques for Localization of Peripheral Zone TumorAmerican Journal of Roentgenology, 2013
- Evaluation of semi-quantitative dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI parameters for prostate cancer in correlation to whole-mount histopathologyEuropean Journal of Radiology, 2012
- ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012European Radiology, 2012
- Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced MRI of the Breast: Quantitative Method for Kinetic Curve Type AssessmentAmerican Journal of Roentgenology, 2009
- Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Breast MR ImagingMagnetic Resonance Imaging Clinics of North America, 2009
- Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI of benign prostatic hyperplasia and prostatic carcinoma: correlation with angiogenesisClinical Radiology, 2008
- Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced MRI of Prostate Cancer at 3 T: A Study of Pharmacokinetic ParametersAmerican Journal of Roentgenology, 2007
- Prostate cancer screening: The clinical value of diffusion‐weighted imaging and dynamic MR imaging in combination with T2‐weighted imagingJournal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging, 2006
- Dynamic image interpretation of MRI of the breastJournal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging, 2000