Problems of Radiation Medicine and Radiobiology

Yu. O. Mytsyk^1,2, A. Ts. Borzhiyevskyy¹, Yu. S. Kobilnyk¹, I. Yu. Dutka^1,2, A. V. Shulyak³,
D. Z. Vorobets¹, I. V. Dats¹, O. A. Borzhiyevskyy¹, Кh. Yu. Kozlovska¹, V. F. Vitkovsky¹, P. O. Illiuk¹

¹ Danylo Halytsky Lviv National Medical University, 69 Pekarska Str., Lviv, 79010, Ukraine
² Euroclinic Medical Center, 9 Ivana Mykolaichuka Str., Lviv, 79000, Ukraine
³ State Institution «Institute of Urology of NAMS of Ukraine», 9a Volodymyra Vynnychenka Str., Kyiv
04053, Ukraine

THE ROLE OF THE APPARENT DIFFUSION COEFFICIENT OF THE BIPARAMETRIC MRI AS AN IMAGING MARKER OF PROSTATE CANCER

Prostate cancer (PCa) is the most common malignancy in men. The role of the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) of biparametric MRI (biMRI) which is a study without the use of dynamic contrast enhancement (DCE), in detection of PCa is still not comprehensively investigated.
Objective. The goal of the study was to assess the role of ADC of biMRI as an imaging marker of clinically significant PCa
Materials and methods. The study involved 78 men suspected of having PCa. All patients underwent a comprehensive clinical examination, which included multiparametric MRI of the prostate, a component of which was biMRI. The MRI data was evaluated according to the PI-RADS system version 2.1.
Results. The distribution of patients according to the PI-RADS system was as follows: 1 point – 9 (11.54 %) patients, 2 points – 12 (15.38 %) patients, 3 points – 25 (32.05 %) patients, 4 points – 19 (24.36 %) patients and 5 points – 13 (16.67 %) patients. In a subgroup of patients with 5 points, clinically significant PCa was detected in 100 % of cases. In the subgroup of patients with tumors of 4 points clinically significant PCa was diagnosed in 16 of 19 (84.21 %) cases, and in 3 (15.79 %) patients – clinically insignificant tumor. In the subgroup of patients with 3 points, clinically significant PCa was diagnosed in 11 of 25 (44.0 %) cases, in 8 (32.0 %) patients – clinically insignificant tumor and in 6 (24.0 %) patients – benign prostatic hyperplasia. PCa with a score of ≥ 7 on the Gleason scale showed significantly lower mean values of ADC of the diffusion-weighted MRI images compared to tumors with a score of < 7 on the Gleason scale: (0.86 ± 0.07) x 10^-3 mm²/s vs (1.08 ± 0.04) x 10^-3 mm²/s (р < 0.05).
Conclusions. The obtained results testify to the high informativeness of biMRI in the diagnosis of prostate cancer. The use of ADC allowed to differentiate clinically significant and insignificant variants of the tumor, as well as benign changes in prostate tissues and can be considered as a potential imaging marker of PCa.
Key words: prostate cancer, diagnosis, biparametric MRI, marker, apparent diffusion coefficient, PI-RADS.

Problems of Radiation Medicine and Radiobiology.
2021;26:541-553. doi: 10.33145/2304-8336-2021-26-541-553

full text

1. Maiyoh GK, Tuei VC. Rising cancer incidence and role of the evolving diet in Kenya. Nutr Cancer. 2019;1-16. doi: 10.1080/01635581.2018.1542010.
2. Wilt TJ, Andriole GL, Brawer MK. Prostatectomy versus observation for early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2017 28;377(13):1302-1303. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc1710384.
3. Mitin T, Nguyen PL. Postoperative radiation therapy in localized prostate cancer: When, How much, and how fast? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2019 Feb 1;103(2):289-292. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2018.08.003.
4. Sueda A, Fumado L, Ferrer M, Garin O, Bonet X, Castells M, et al. Health-related quality of life in men with prostate cancer undergoing active surveillance versus radical prostatectomy, external-beam radiotherapy, prostate brachytherapy and reference population: a cross-sectional study. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2019 14;17(1):11. doi: 10.1186/s12955-019-1082-4.
5. Shah TT, Peters M, Eldred-Evans D, Miah S, Yap T, Faure-Walker NA, et al. Early-medium-term outcomes of primary focal cryotherapy to treat nonmetastatic clinically significant prostate cancer from a Prospective Multicentre Registry. Eur Urol. 2019;76(1):98-105. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.12.030.
6. Pooli A, Salmasi A, Faiena I, Lenis AT, Johnson DC, Lebacle C, et al. Variation in surgical treatment patterns for patients with prostate cancer in the United States: Do patients in academic hospitals fare better? Urol Oncol. 2019;37(1):63-70. doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2018.10.018.
7. Kim SH, Park EY, Joo J, Joung JY, Seo HK, Chung J, et al. Effect of neoadjuvant hormone therapy on resection margin and survival prognoses in locally advanced prostate cancer after prostatectomy using propensity-score matching. Biomed Res Int. 2018;2018:4307207. doi: 10.1155/2018/4307207.
8. Press B, Rosenkrantz AB, Huang R, Taneja SS. The ultrasound characteristics of regions identified as suspicious by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) predict the likelihood of clinically significant cancer on MRI-ultrasound fusion-targeted biopsy. BJU Int. 2018;123(3):439-446. doi: 10.1111/bju.14615.
9. Shoji S. Magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound fusion image-guided prostate biopsy: Current status of the cancer detection and the prospects of tailor-made medicine of the prostate cancer. Investig Clin Urol. 2019;60(1):4-13. doi: 10.4111/icu.2019.60.1.4.
10. Meng X, Rosenkrantz AB, Mendhiratta N, Fenstermaker M, Huang R, Wysock JS, et al. Relationship between prebiopsy multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mri), biopsy indication, and MRI-ultrasound fusion-targeted prostate biopsy outcomes. Eur Urol. 2016;69(3):512517. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.06.005
11. Bjurlin MA, Meng X, Le Nobin J, Wysock JS, Lepor H, Rosenkrantz AB, et al. Optimization of prostate biopsy: the role of magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy in detection, localization and risk assessment. J Urol. 2014;192(3):648-658. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2014.03.117.
12. Hansen NL, Kesch C, Barrett T, Koo B, Radtke JP, Bonekamp D, et al. Multicentre evaluation of targeted and systematic biopsies using magnetic resonance and ultrasound image-fusion guided transperineal prostate biopsy in patients with a previous negative biopsy. BJU Int. 2017;120(5):631-638. doi: 10.1111/bju.13711.
13. Mytsyk Y, Dutka I, Yuriy B, Maksymovych I, Caprnda M, Gazdikova K, et al. Differential diagnosis of the small renal masses: role of the apparent diffusion coefficient of the diffusion-weighted MRI. Int Urol Nephrol. 2018;50(2):197-204. doi: 10.1007/s11255-017-1761-1.
14. Mytsyk Y, Dutka I, Borys Y, Komnatska I, Shatynska-Mytsyk I, Farooqi AA, et al. Renal cell carcinoma: applicability of the apparent coefficient of the diffusion-weighted estimated by MRI for improving their differential diagnosis, histologic subtyping, and differentiation grade. Int Urol Nephrol. 2017;49(2):215-224. doi: 10.1007/s11255-016-1460-3.
15. Mytsyk Y, Pasichnyk S, Dutka I, Dats I, Vorobets D, Skrzypczyk M, et al. Systemic treatment of the metastatic renal cell carcinoma: usefulness of the apparent diffusion coefficient of diffusion-weighted MRI in prediction of early therapeutic response. Clin Exp Med. 2020;20(2):277-287. doi: 10.1007/s10238-020-00612-9.
16. Niu X-K, Chen Z-F, Chen L, Li J, Peng T, Li X. Clinical Application of Biparametric MRI Texture Analysis for Detection and Evaluation of High-Grade Prostate Cancer in Zone-Specific Regions. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2018;210(3):549-556. doi: 10.2214/AJR.17.18494.