Download PDF
CC BY 4.0 · Journal of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology
DOI: 10.1055/s-0045-1809029
Original Article

Risk Stratification of Prostate Cancer: Preoperatively Assessing Aggressiveness of Favorable and Unfavorable Intermediate-Risk Groups by Advanced Diffusion-Weighted Imaging

Hua-Bin Huang   *
1   Department of Radiology, The Seventh Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yet-sen University, Shenzhen, People Republic of China
,
Shu-Yi Li   *
1   Department of Radiology, The Seventh Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yet-sen University, Shenzhen, People Republic of China
,
Jie Bian
2   Department of Radiology, Second Affiliated Hospital of Dalian Medical University, Dalian, People Republic of China
,
Zhong-Xing Luo
1   Department of Radiology, The Seventh Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yet-sen University, Shenzhen, People Republic of China
,
Di-Min Liu
1   Department of Radiology, The Seventh Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yet-sen University, Shenzhen, People Republic of China
,
Kun-Peng Zhou 
1   Department of Radiology, The Seventh Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yet-sen University, Shenzhen, People Republic of China
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
  Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background

The treatment decisions and prognostic outcomes have distinct differences between unfavorable intermediate-risk group (un-FIRG) prostate carcinoma (PCa) and favorable intermediate-risk group (FIRG) PCa. The study aimed to differentiate un-FIRG and FIRG by using advanced diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI).

Methods

From December 2018 to January 2023, 51 FIRG patients and 67 un-FIRG patients were enrolled in our study. All enrolled PCa patients underwent diffusion kurtosis imaging (DKI) and intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) imaging and stretched exponential model using a 3.0-T system. The statistical tests included independent samples t-test and binary logistic regression analysis.

Results

Results showed that fractional anisotropy (FA) value and mean kurtosis (MK) value of the un-FIRG (p < 0.001, p < 0.001) were significantly higher than those of the FIRG. On the contrary, mean diffusion (MD), standard apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), diffusion coefficient (D), and distribute diffusion coefficient (DDC) of the un-FIRG (p = 0.013, p < 0.001, p < 0.001, p < 0.001) were significantly lower than those of the FIRG. Results of binary logistic regression analysis showed that the diagnostic model was statistically significant, chi-square = 90.969, p < 0.001, which could effectively distinguish the 86.40% of un-FIRG in the intermediate-risk group. The results of receiver operating characteristic analysis showed that the area under the curve was 0.9429. Sensitivity and specificity were 88.06 and 84.31%.

Conclusion

Compared with the FIRG group PCa, the un-FIRG group PCa exhibits lower standard ADC, D, DDC, and MD values, as well as higher FA and MK values. This suggests that preoperative advanced DWI may serve as an imaging biomarker for distinguishing between the FIRG group and un-FIRG group PCa.

Relevance Statement

Combining preoperative advanced DWI (DKI, IVIM imaging, and the stretched exponential model) shows potential for noninvasive subrisk stratification of intermediate-risk group PCa.

Keywords

prostate cancer - intermediate-risk group - diffusion kurtosis imaging - intravoxel incoherent motion imaging - stretched exponential model

Ethics

Institutional Ethics Committee of The Second Hospital of Dalian Medical University approved the study.


* These authors contributed equally to this work.




Publication History

Article published online:
19 May 2025

© 2025. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Siegel RL, Miller KD, Wagle NS, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2023. CA Cancer J Clin 2023; 73 (01) 17-48
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Moses KA, Sprenkle PC, Bahler C. et al. NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Prostate Cancer Early Detection, Version 1.2023. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2023; 21 (03) 236-246
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Ward EM, Sherman RL, Henley SJ. et al. Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, featuring cancer in men and women age 20–49 years. J Natl Cancer Inst 2019; 111 (12) 1279-1297
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Schaeffer EM, Srinivas S, Adra N. et al. NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Prostate Cancer, Version 1.2023. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2022; 20 (12) 1288-1298
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Reese AC, Pierorazio PM, Han M, Partin AW. Contemporary evaluation of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network prostate cancer risk classification system. Urology 2012; 80 (05) 1075-1079
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Gandaglia G, Karnes RJ, Sivaraman A. et al. Are all grade group 4 prostate cancers created equal? Implications for the applicability of the novel grade grouping. Urol Oncol 2017; 35 (07) 461.e7-461.e14
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 7 Zumsteg ZS, Spratt DE, Pei I. et al. A new risk classification system for therapeutic decision making with intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients undergoing dose-escalated external-beam radiation therapy. Eur Urol 2013; 64 (06) 895-902
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Grey ADR, Scott R, Shah B. et al. Multiparametric ultrasound versus multiparametric MRI to diagnose prostate cancer (CADMUS): a prospective, multicentre, paired-cohort, confirmatory study. Lancet Oncol 2022; 23 (03) 428-438
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Eldred-Evans D, Neves JB, Simmons LAM. et al. Added value of diffusion-weighted images and dynamic contrast enhancement in multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer in the PICTURE trial. BJU Int 2020; 125 (03) 391-398
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Glazer DI, Hassanzadeh E, Fedorov A. et al. Diffusion-weighted endorectal MR imaging at 3T for prostate cancer: correlation with tumor cell density and percentage Gleason pattern on whole mount pathology. Abdom Radiol (NY) 2017; 42 (03) 918-925
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Barrett T, McLean M, Priest AN. et al. Diagnostic evaluation of magnetization transfer and diffusion kurtosis imaging for prostate cancer detection in a re-biopsy population. Eur Radiol 2018; 28 (08) 3141-3150
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Tamada T, Prabhu V, Li J, Babb JS, Taneja SS, Rosenkrantz AB. Assessment of prostate cancer aggressiveness using apparent diffusion coefficient values: impact of patient race and age. Abdom Radiol (NY) 2017; 42 (06) 1744-1751
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Shan Y, Chen X, Liu K, Zeng M, Zhou J. Prostate cancer aggressive prediction: preponderant diagnostic performances of intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) imaging and diffusion kurtosis imaging (DKI) beyond ADC at 3.0 T scanner with Gleason score at final pathology. Abdom Radiol (NY) 2019; 44 (10) 3441-3452
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Chou MC, Ko CW, Chiu YH, Chung HW, Lai PH. Effects of B value on quantification of rapid diffusion kurtosis imaging in normal and acute ischemic brain tissues. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2017; 41 (06) 868-876
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL. et al. PI-RADS Prostate Imaging - Reporting and Data System: 2015, Version 2. Eur Urol 2016; 69 (01) 16-40
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Turkbey B, Rosenkrantz AB, Haider MA. et al. Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2.1: 2019 update of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2. Eur Urol 2019; 76 (03) 340-351
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Epstein JI, Amin MB, Reuter VE, Humphrey PA. Contemporary Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma: an update with discussion on practical issues to implement the 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 2017; 41 (04) e1-e7
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Chen Z, Xue Y, Zhang Z. et al. The performance of intravoxel-incoherent motion diffusion-weighted imaging derived hypoxia for the risk stratification of prostate cancer in peripheral zone. Eur J Radiol 2020; 125: 108865
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Kim E, Kim CK, Kim HS, Jang DP, Kim IY, Hwang J. Histogram analysis from stretched exponential model on diffusion-weighted imaging: evaluation of clinically significant prostate cancer. Br J Radiol 2020; 93 (1106) 20190757
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Yang DM, Kim HC, Kim SW. et al. Prostate cancer: correlation of intravoxel incoherent motion MR parameters with Gleason score. Clin Imaging 2016; 40 (03) 445-450
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 van Leenders GJLH, van der Kwast TH, Grignon DJ. et al; ISUP Grading Workshop Panel Members. The 2019 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on grading of prostatic carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 2020; 44 (08) e87-e99
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Dominguez C, Plata M, Cataño JG. et al. Diagnostic accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in detecting extracapsular extension in intermediate and high - risk prostate cancer. Int Braz J Urol 2018; 44 (04) 688-696
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Ding K, Yao Y, Gao Y. et al. Diagnostic evaluation of diffusion kurtosis imaging for prostate cancer: detection in a biopsy population. Eur J Radiol 2019; 118: 138-146
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 24 Chatterjee A, Watson G, Myint E, Sved P, McEntee M, Bourne R. Changes in epithelium, stroma, and lumen space correlate more strongly with Gleason pattern and are stronger predictors of prostate ADC changes than cellularity metrics. Radiology 2015; 277 (03) 751-762
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 25 Iima M, Le Bihan D. Clinical intravoxel incoherent motion and diffusion MR imaging: past, present, and future. Radiology 2016; 278 (01) 13-32
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 26 Liu X, Zhou L, Peng W, Wang H, Zhang Y. Comparison of stretched-exponential and monoexponential model diffusion-weighted imaging in prostate cancer and normal tissues. J Magn Reson Imaging 2015; 42 (04) 1078-1085
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 27 Fukunaga T, Tamada T, Kanomata N. et al. Quantitative diffusion-weighted imaging and dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging for assessment of tumor aggressiveness in prostate cancer at 3T. Magn Reson Imaging 2021; 83: 152-159
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 28 Tamada T, Prabhu V, Li J, Babb JS, Taneja SS, Rosenkrantz AB. Prostate cancer: diffusion-weighted MR imaging for detection and assessment of aggressiveness-comparison between conventional and kurtosis models. Radiology 2017; 284 (01) 100-108
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 29 Wang Q, Li H, Yan X. et al. Histogram analysis of diffusion kurtosis magnetic resonance imaging in differentiation of pathologic Gleason grade of prostate cancer. Urol Oncol 2015; 33 (08) 337.e15-337.e24
    Search in Google Scholar