1. Revisiting DCE-MRI: Classification of Prostate Tissue Using Descriptive Signal Enhancement Features Derived From DCE-MRI Acquisition With High Spatiotemporal Resolution
- Author
-
Tobias K. Block, Hanns C Breit, Julian E. Gehweiler, David J. Winkel, Christian Wetterauer, Daniel T. Boll, H.H. Seifert, Tobias Heye, and Carl G Glessgen
- Subjects
Image-Guided Biopsy ,Male ,Wilcoxon signed-rank test ,Contrast Media ,Spearman's rank correlation coefficient ,Sensitivity and Specificity ,Article ,Correlation ,Prostate cancer ,Text mining ,Prostate ,medicine ,Humans ,Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and imaging ,Retrospective Studies ,business.industry ,Multiparametric Analysis ,Ultrasound ,Prostatic Neoplasms ,General Medicine ,medicine.disease ,Magnetic Resonance Imaging ,medicine.anatomical_structure ,Diffusion Magnetic Resonance Imaging ,business ,Nuclear medicine - Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to investigate the diagnostic value of descriptive prostate perfusion parameters derived from signal enhancement curves acquired using golden-angle radial sparse parallel dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with high spatiotemporal resolution in advanced, quantitative evaluation of prostate cancer compared with the usage of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values. METHODS: A retrospective study (from January 2016 to July 2019) including 75 subjects (mean, 65 years; 46–80 years) with 2.5-second temporal resolution DCE-MRI and PIRADS 4 or 5 lesions was performed. Fifty-four subjects had biopsy-proven prostate cancer (Gleason 6, 15; Gleason 7, 20; Gleason 8, 13; Gleason 9, 6), whereas 21 subjects had negative MRI/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsies. Voxel-wise analysis of contrast signal enhancement was performed for all time points using custom-developed software, including automatic arterial input function detection. Seven descriptive parameter maps were calculated: normalized maximum signal intensity, time to start, time to maximum, time-to-maximum slope, and maximum slope with normalization on maximum signal and the arterial input function (SMN1, SMN2). The parameters were compared with ADC using multiparametric machine-learning models to determine classification accuracy. A Wilcoxon test was used for the hypothesis test and the Spearman coefficient for correlation. RESULTS: There were significant differences (P < 0.05) for all 7 DCE-derived parameters between the normal peripheral zone versus PIRADS 4 or 5 lesions and the biopsy-positive versus biopsy-negative lesions. Multiparametric analysis showed better performance when combining ADC + DCE as input (accuracy/sensitivity/specificity, 97%/93%/100%) relative to ADC alone (accuracy/sensitivity/specificity, 94%/95%/95%) and to DCE alone (accuracy/sensitivity/specificity, 78%/79%/77%) in differentiating the normal peripheral zone from PIRADS lesions, biopsy-positive versus biopsy-negative lesions (accuracy/sensitivity/specificity, 68%/33%/81%), and Gleason 6 versus ≥7 prostate cancer (accuracy/sensitivity/specificity, 69%/60%/72%). CONCLUSIONS: Descriptive perfusion characteristics derived from high-resolution DCE-MRI using model-free computations show significant differences between normal and cancerous tissue but do not reach the accuracy achieved with solely ADC-based classification. Combining ADC with DCE-based input features improved classification accuracy for PIRADS lesions, discrimination of biopsy-positive versus biopsy-negative lesions, and differentiation between Gleason 6 versus Gleason ≥7 lesions.
- Published
- 2021