Maria Giovanna Di Trani1,2, Alessandra Caporale2,3, Marco Nezzo4, Roberto Miano5, Alessandro Mauriello6, Pierluigi Bove7, Guglielmo Manenti4, and Silvia Capuani8
1SAIMLAL Dept., Morphogenesis and Tissue Engineering, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy, 2Physics Dept., CNR ISC UOS Roma Sapienza, Rome, Italy, 3SAIMLAL Dept., Morpho-functional Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, 4Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Molecular Imaging and Radiotherapy, PTV Foundation, “Tor Vergata” University of Rome, Rome, Italy, 5Urology Unit, Department of Experimental Medicine and Surgery, 6Anatomic Pathology, Department of Biomedicine and Prevention, PTV Foundation, “Tor Vergata” University of Rome, 7Urology Unit, Department of Experimental Medicine and Surgery, PTV Foundation, “Tor Vergata” University of Rome, 8CNR ISC UOS Roma Sapienza, Rome, Italy
Synopsis
This
work was finalized to compare the diagnostic potential of Diffusion
Tensor and Diffusion Kurtosis Imaging in discriminating between low-
and high-risk prostate cancer (Pca). Maps
of Mean Diffusivity (MD), apparent Kurtosis (K) and apparent
diffusion coefficient (D) were obtained from DWIs of 24 patients with
different tumour grade. K maps better highlight differences between
periferal PCa, PCa and benign tissue. In particular K discriminates
between low- and high-risk PCa with a higher statistical significance
compared to that of MD. DKI can improve the accuracy of the current
PCa diagnosis providing a useful tool for PCa detection and grading.
Purpose
Prostate
cancer (PCa) is the second most common malignancy and the fifth
leading cause of death in men worldwide [1].
Accurate staging is desirable for treatment planning, since high-risk
cancer is treated with surgery or radiation, while therapy for
low-risk cancer considers active surveillance without invasive
treatments. According to the new grading system proposed by the ISUP
[2], low risk PCa are characterized by Grade Group (GG)=1,2 while
high risk PCa are defined by GG$$$\geq$$$3.
Diffusion Tensor Imaging (DTI) with high
b-values (up to 2500s/mm2) has highlighted to provide a good
discrimination between low- and high-risk PCa [3]. However,
parameters derived from non-Gaussian diffusion model are in principle
more sensitive to the microstructural changes in biological tissue
than the Gaussian model [4].
Therefore,
our aim was to compare the diagnostic performance of diffusional
kurtosis imaging (DKI) and the conventional DTI approach in the
discrimination between low- and high-risk PCa.Materials and Methods
A
cohort of 24 patients with different aggressiveness grades
(GG=1,2,3,4,5 corresponding to Gleason Score
GS=3+3,3+4,4+3,4+4,4+5/5+4) PCa were retrospectively enrolled to be
examined by MRI, using a 3T clinical MR
scanner (Intera Achieva, Philips Medical Systems, The Nederlands) and
a six-channel phased array SENSE torso coil. Each patient underwent
the MR examination after two months from the first TRUS-guided
biopsy.
Diffusion-weighted
images were acquired along 6 different diffusion directions with 6
different b-values (0,500,1000,1500,2000,2500 s/mm2), by using
a diffusion weighted single shot EPI sequence (TR=3000, TE=67,
FOV=150×130×70mm3, acquisition matrix=64×52, reconstruction
matrix 96×96, slice thickness STK=3mm, gap=0, NSA=4). The
acquisition protocol also included high spatial resolution
T2-weighted (T2W) turbo spin echo (TR=3957, TE=150, turbo factor
21, FOV=150×130mm, STK=3mm, gap=0, acquisition matrix256x178,
reconstruction matrix=512×512, NSA=6, flip angle=90°).
The
image pre-processing and the reconstruction of the Mean Diffusivity
(MD) parametric maps was performed using FSL 5.0 (FMRIB Software
Library v5.0, FMRIB, Oxford, UK). Parametric maps of apparent Kurtosis
(K) and apparent diffusion coefficient (D) of the quadratic model
were obtained by using an in-house algorithm developed in Matlab
(MATLAB R2012b, The Mathworks, Natick, MA). Region of Interests (ROI)
in PCa and contralateral benign zone were manually drawn by an expert
radiologist, referring to T2W-images, for each subject. The pixels
nearest to the PCa ROI edge were considered as peritumoral ROI.
One-way
ANOVA was performed to test statistical significance of differences
in MD, K and D values calculated in PCa belonging to low- and
high-grade groups. Moreover, the statistical significance of
differences in MD, K and D values between benign and PCa tissue and
between benign and peritumoral area were evaluated. The linear
correlation between MD, K, D values and the tumour grade was
estimated by the Pearson's test. Because
low Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR) of DWIs acquired at larger b-values
are an obvious drawback for non Gaussian diffusion techniques, we
evaluated SNR of DWIs at each b values to investigate about the
reliability DKI maps.Results
An
example of T2, MD, K and D maps are displayed in Fig.1 for a patient
with PCa characterized by GG=3.
The
SNR of b=0 images was approximately equal to 55 in PCa and
remained higher than 22 up to b=2500 s/mm2.
Statistically
significant difference was found between each parameter values (MD,
K, D) measured in PCa and benign controlateral zone. However, K had
the highest significance (p<0.0001). K showed the highest
significance (p<0.001) also in the discrimination between
peritumoral and benign regions and peritumoral and PCa.
A
moderate positive correlation was found between K and GG (r=0.52;
p<0.001), while a weak negative correlation was found between both
D and MD and GG (r=-0.38, p=0.011; r=-0.36, p=0.016, respectively).
Plots
of K, D and MD as a function of GG are displayed in Fig.2.
K,
D and MD significantly discriminate between low-risk (GG=1&2) and
high-risk PCa (GG=3,4,5) with p<0.001, p<0.004, p<0.02,
respectively.Discussion and conclusions
The SNR was higher than 20,
which is an acceptable value for considering DKI maps reliable.
The
diagnostic performance of DKI in discriminating between PCa and
benign tissue and in differentiating among PCa characterized by
different GG was superior compared to that provided by DTI. Moreover
K maps better highlight differences between periferal PCa and benign
tissue. In particular K discriminates between low- and high-risk PCa
better than Mean diffusivity does (Fig.2).
These
results confirm that non-Gaussian DKI parameters are more sensitive
to tissue microstructural changes, occurring with tumour onset and
progression compared to Gaussian parametrs. Therefore this work
suggests that DKI could be a useful tool in the diagnosis and grading
of PCa to ensure a correct therapy for the patients.
Acknowledgements
No acknowledgement found.References
[1] Ferlay, J. et al.,
Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: Sources, methods and major
patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. Int. J. Cancer, 136 (2015): E359–E386.
[2] J.I. Epstein et al. The
grading committee, the 2014 International Society of Urological
Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on gleason grading of prostatic
carcinoma: definition of grading patterns and proposal for a new
grading system. Am. J. Surg. Pathol., 40 (2) (2016), pp. 244–252.
[3] Nezzo, M. et al., Mean
diffusivity discriminates between prostate cancer with grade group
1&2 and grade groups equal to or greater than 3. European Journal
of Radiology , Volume 85 (2016) , Issue 10 , 1794 – 1801.
[4] Jensen JH, Helpern JA.
MRI quantification of non-Gaussian water diffusion by kurtosis
analysis. NMR Biomed 2010;23:698– 710.