Journals / Uluslararası Hematoloji-Onkoloji Dergisi / 2015 / Cilt: 25 - Sayı: 2

Definitif Radyoterapi ile Tedavi Edilen Prostat Kanserli Hastalarda Klinik Risk Faktörleri ve Difüzyon Ağırlıklı Manyetik Rezonans Görüntülerinin İlişkisi

Correlation of Clinical Risk Factors with Diffusion-Weighted Magnetic Resonance Images in Prostate Cancer Patients Treated with Definitive Radiotherapy

Pages
88–97
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

ADCs measured by DW-MRI are noninvasive prognostic markers of clinical parameters and risk for prostate cancer in RT candidates.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study is aimed to correlate apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values and clinical T-stage, serum PSA, pathology Gleason scores.
📊
Key Findings & Data:We also further analyzed whether ADC values could be used to appropriately define the risk groups. 135 biopsy-proven, radiotherapy-(RT)-treated, prostate cancer patients who underwent pre-RT DW-MRI and standard T2W pelvic MRI were included.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:ADCs measured by DW-MRI are noninvasive prognostic markers of clinical parameters and risk for prostate cancer in RT candidates.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

This study is aimed to correlate apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values and clinical T-stage, serum PSA, pathology Gleason scores. We also further analyzed whether ADC values could be used to appropriately define the risk groups. 135 biopsy-proven, radiotherapy-(RT)-treated, prostate cancer patients who underwent pre-RT DW-MRI and standard T2W pelvic MRI were included. ADC and normalized ADC (nADC) values were calculated from DW-MRI delivered a median 8.1 weeks after prostate biopsy. ADC values were correlated with clinical risk factor values by using Pearson correlation test. ADCs in low-, intermediate-, and high-risk patients were 0.873±0.122X10–3 mm2 /s, 0.763±0.124X10–3 mm2 /s, and 0.701±0.132X10–3 mm2 /s (p= 0.001), respectively. Patients with preRT PSA <10 ng/mL had significantly higher ADCs than patients with preRT PSA 10–20 ng/mL (p= 0.02) or >20 ng/mL (p< 0.001). Mean ADC for patients with Gleason score <7 was significantly higher than patients scoring 7 (p= 0.001) or >7 (p < 0.001). Clinical stage <T2b patients had significantly higher ADC values versus stage T2b (p=0.001) and T2b tumors (p< 0.001). ADC demonstrated stronger correlation with NCCN risk groups (R=–0.510; p< 0.001). All clinical factors except Gleason score had moderate inverse correlation with nADC. Best nADC correlation occurred with NCCN risk groups (R=-0.461; p< 0.001). ADCs measured by DW-MRI are noninvasive prognostic markers of clinical parameters and risk for prostate cancer in RT candidates.

Özet

Bu çalışmanın amacı klinik T evresi, serum prostat spesifik anijen (PSA) ve patolojik Gleason skoru ile apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) değerlerinin ilişkisini araştırmak. Ayrıca ADC değerlerinin risk gruplarının tanımlanması için uygun olup olmayacağını analiz edilmiştir. Definitif radyoterapi (RT) ile tedavi edilen, tedavi öncesi DA-MRG ve standart T2 ağırlıklı MRG’si olan 135 prostat kanserli hasta çalışmaya dahil edildi. Prostat biyopsisinden medyan 8.1 hafta sonra çekilen DA-MRG’ lerden ADC ve normalize edilmiş ADC (nADC) değerleri ölçüldü. ADC değerleri ve klinik risk faktörleri arasındaki ilişkiyi araştırmak için Pearson korelasyon testi kullanıldı. Düşük, orta ve yüksek risk hastalarda ADC değerleri sırası ile 0.873±0.122×10–3 mm2 /s, 0.763±0.124×10–3 mm2 /s ve 0.701±0.132×10–3 mm2 /s (p = 0.001) idi. RT öncesi PSA değerleri 20 ng/mL (p 7 (p 2b (p < 0.001) hastalara göre anlamlı derecede daha yüksekti. ADC değerleri National Compheresive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk grupları ile kuvvetli bir korelasyon gösterdi(R=–0.510; p< 0.001). Gleason skoru hariç tüm klinik faktörler nADC değeri ile ılımlı ters bir korelasyon içindeydi. nADC’ nin en iyi korelasyonu NCCN risk grupları ileydi. (R=–0.461; p< 0.001). DA-MRG ile ölçülen ADC değerleri, RT planlanan prostat kanserli hastalarda önemli bir non invaziv prognostik belirteç olarak değerlendirilebilir.

🔖

Cite This Article

ERBAY, G., ÖNAL, C., GULER, O. C., KARADELİ, E., KOÇ, Z. (2015). Definitif Radyoterapi ile Tedavi Edilen Prostat Kanserli Hastalarda Klinik Risk Faktörleri ve Difüzyon Ağırlıklı Manyetik Rezonans Görüntülerinin İlişkisi. Uluslararası Hematoloji-Onkoloji Dergisi, Cilt: 25 - Sayı: 2, 88–97. https://ajindex.com/articles/322875

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Heidenreich A, Bastian PJ, Bellmunt J, et al. EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part II: Treatment of advanced, relapsing, and castration-resistant prostate cancer. Eur Urol 65: 467- 79, 2014.
  2. Onal C, Topkan E, Efe E, et al. The effect of concurrent androgen deprivation and 3D conformal radiotherapy on prostate volume and clinical organ doses during treatment for prostate cancer. Br J Radiol 82: 1019-26, 2009.
  3. Chism DB, Hanlon AL, Horwitz EM, et al. A comparison of the single and double factor high-risk models for risk assignment of prostate cancer treated with 3D conformal radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 59: 380-5, 2004.
  4. Albertsen PC, Hanley JA, Gleason DF, et al. Competing risk analysis of men aged 55 to 74 years at diagnosis managed conservatively for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 280: 975-80, 1998.
  5. Vickers AJ, Thompson IM, Klein E, et al. A Commentary on PSA Velocity and Doubling Time for Clinical Decisions in Prostate Cancer. Urology 83: 592-98, 2014.
  6. Hegde JV, Mulkern RV, Panych LP, et al. Multiparametric MRI of prostate cancer: an update on state-of-the-art techniques and their performance in detecting and localizing prostate cancer. J Magn Reson Imaging. 37: 1035-54, 2013.
  7. Truesdale MD, Cheetham PJ, Turk AT, et al. Gleason score concordance on biopsy-confirmed prostate cancer: is pathological re-evaluation necessary prior to radical prostatectomy? BJU Int107: 749-54, 2011.
  8. Kupka R, Dall’oglio MF, Sant’ana AC, et al. Can single positive core prostate cancer at biopsy be considered a low-risk disease after radical prostatectomy? Int Braz J Urol 39: 800- 7, 2013.
  9. Shoji S, Hiraiwa S, Endo J, et al. Manually controlled targeted prostate biopsy with real-time fusion imaging of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and transrectal ultrasound: An early experience. Int J Urol 22:173-8, 2015.
  10. Tilak G, Tuncali K, Song SE, et al. 3T MR-guided in-bore transperineal prostate biopsy: A comparison of robotic and manual needle-guidance templates. J Magn Reson Imaging, (in press) 2014.
  11. Le JD, Tan N, Shkolyar E, et al. Multifocality and prostate cancer detection by multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: correlation with whole-mount histopathology. Eur Urol 67: 569-76, 2015.
  12. Hambrock T, Somford DM, Huisman HJ, et al. Relationship between apparent diffusion coefficients at 3.0-T MR imaging and Gleason grade in peripheral zone prostate cancer. Radiology 259: 453-61, 2011.
  13. Kobus T, Hambrock T, Hulsbergen-van de Kaa CA, et al. In vivo as