dc.contributor.author
Michallek, Florian
dc.contributor.author
Huisman, Henkjan
dc.contributor.author
Hamm, Bernd
dc.contributor.author
Elezkurtaj, Sefer
dc.contributor.author
Maxeiner, Andreas
dc.contributor.author
Dewey, Marc
dc.date.accessioned
2023-07-12T08:29:44Z
dc.date.available
2023-07-12T08:29:44Z
dc.identifier.uri
https://refubium.fu-berlin.de/handle/fub188/40054
dc.identifier.uri
http://dx.doi.org/10.17169/refubium-39776
dc.description.abstract
Objectives: Multiparametric MRI with Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) assessment is sensitive but not specific for detecting clinically significant prostate cancer. This study validates the diagnostic accuracy of the recently suggested fractal dimension (FD) of perfusion for detecting clinically significant cancer.
Materials and methods: Routine clinical MR imaging data, acquired at 3 T without an endorectal coil including dynamic contrast-enhanced sequences, of 72 prostate cancer foci in 64 patients were analyzed. In-bore MRI-guided biopsy with International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grading served as reference standard. Previously established FD cutoffs for predicting tumor grade were compared to measurements of the apparent diffusion coefficient (25th percentile, ADC(25)) and PI-RADS assessment with and without inclusion of the FD as separate criterion.
Results: Fractal analysis allowed prediction of ISUP grade groups 1 to 4 but not 5, with high agreement to the reference standard (kappa(FD) = 0.88 [CI: 0.79-0.98]). Integrating fractal analysis into PI-RADS allowed a strong improvement in specificity and overall accuracy while maintaining high sensitivity for significant cancer detection (ISUP > 1; PI-RADS alone: sensitivity = 96%, specificity = 20%, area under the receiver operating curve [AUC] = 0.65; versus PI-RADS with fractal analysis: sensitivity = 95%, specificity = 88%, AUC = 0.92, p < 0.001). ADC(25) only differentiated low-grade group 1 from pooled higher-grade groups 2-5 (kappa(ADC) = 0.36 [CI: 0.12-0.59]). Importantly, fractal analysis was significantly more reliable than ADC(25) in predicting non-significant and clinically significant cancer (AUC(FD) = 0.96 versus AUC(ADC) = 0.75, p < 0.001). Diagnostic accuracy was not significantly affected by zone location.
Conclusions: Fractal analysis is accurate in noninvasively predicting tumor grades in prostate cancer and adds independent information when implemented into PI-RADS assessment. This opens the opportunity to individually adjust biopsy priority and method in individual patients.
en
dc.rights.uri
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.subject
Prostatic neoplasms
en
dc.subject
Neoplasm grading
en
dc.subject
Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging
en
dc.subject.ddc
600 Technik, Medizin, angewandte Wissenschaften::610 Medizin und Gesundheit::610 Medizin und Gesundheit
dc.title
Accuracy of fractal analysis and PI-RADS assessment of prostate magnetic resonance imaging for prediction of cancer grade groups: a clinical validation study
dc.type
Wissenschaftlicher Artikel
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.doi
10.1007/s00330-021-08358-y
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.journaltitle
European Radiology
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.number
4
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.originalpublishername
Springer Nature
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.pagestart
2372
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.pageend
2383
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.volume
32
refubium.affiliation
Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin
refubium.funding
Springer Nature DEAL
refubium.resourceType.isindependentpub
no
dcterms.accessRights.openaire
open access
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.pmid
34921618
dcterms.isPartOf.issn
0938-7994
dcterms.isPartOf.eissn
1432-1084