Dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging curve-type analysis: Is it helpful in the differentiation of prostate cancer from healthy peripheral zone?

Barry Hansford, Yahui Peng, Yulei Jiang, Michael W. Vannier, Tatjana Antic, Stephen Thomas, Stephanie McCann, Aytekin Oto

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

42 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the performance and interobserver agreement of qualitative dynamic contrast material-enhanced magnetic resonance (MR) imaging curve analysis as described in the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PIRADS) for the differentiation of prostate cancer (PCa) from healthy prostatic tissue in the peripheral zone (PZ). Materials and Methods: This Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant institutional review board-approved retrospective analysis included 120 consecutive pretreatment dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MR imaging PCa examinations. Regions of interest (ROIs) were placed in 251 spots, including 95 (37.8%) in healthy PZ tissue and 156 (62.2%) in PCa, by using detailed histologic-multiparametric MR correlation review. Three radiologists reviewed the DCE time curves and assessed qualitative curve types as described in PI-RADS: type 1 (progressive), type 2 (plateau), or type 3 (washout). Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was used to assess accuracy in differentiating PCa from healthy tissue on the basis of curve type, and k was calculated to assess interobserver agreement. Results: Receiver operating characteristic curves were similar for all observers, but mean areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve were poor (0.58 ± 0.04 [standard deviation] to 0.63 ± 0.04). No differences in accuracy were seen for varying DCE time resolution and imaging length. Observer agreement in assessment of type 3 versus types 1 or 2 curves was substantial (0.66 < k < 0.79), better for PCa ROIs than for healthy-tissue ROIs. The agreement between type 1 and type 2 curves was moderate to substantial (0.49 < k < 0.78). Conclusion: Qualitative DCE MR imaging time-curve-type analysis performs poorly for differentiation of PCa from healthy prostatic tissue. Interobserver agreement is excellent in assessment of type 3 curves but only moderate for type 1 and 2 curves.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)448-457
Number of pages10
JournalRADIOLOGY
Volume275
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2015
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Prostatic Neoplasms
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
ROC Curve
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
Research Ethics Committees
Information Systems
Contrast Media
Prostate
Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

Dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging curve-type analysis : Is it helpful in the differentiation of prostate cancer from healthy peripheral zone? / Hansford, Barry; Peng, Yahui; Jiang, Yulei; Vannier, Michael W.; Antic, Tatjana; Thomas, Stephen; McCann, Stephanie; Oto, Aytekin.

In: RADIOLOGY, Vol. 275, No. 2, 01.01.2015, p. 448-457.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Hansford, Barry ; Peng, Yahui ; Jiang, Yulei ; Vannier, Michael W. ; Antic, Tatjana ; Thomas, Stephen ; McCann, Stephanie ; Oto, Aytekin. / Dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging curve-type analysis : Is it helpful in the differentiation of prostate cancer from healthy peripheral zone?. In: RADIOLOGY. 2015 ; Vol. 275, No. 2. pp. 448-457.
@article{29a3dad365ef4b3cacf478f23a8a0db2,
title = "Dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging curve-type analysis: Is it helpful in the differentiation of prostate cancer from healthy peripheral zone?",
abstract = "Purpose: To evaluate the performance and interobserver agreement of qualitative dynamic contrast material-enhanced magnetic resonance (MR) imaging curve analysis as described in the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PIRADS) for the differentiation of prostate cancer (PCa) from healthy prostatic tissue in the peripheral zone (PZ). Materials and Methods: This Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant institutional review board-approved retrospective analysis included 120 consecutive pretreatment dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MR imaging PCa examinations. Regions of interest (ROIs) were placed in 251 spots, including 95 (37.8{\%}) in healthy PZ tissue and 156 (62.2{\%}) in PCa, by using detailed histologic-multiparametric MR correlation review. Three radiologists reviewed the DCE time curves and assessed qualitative curve types as described in PI-RADS: type 1 (progressive), type 2 (plateau), or type 3 (washout). Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was used to assess accuracy in differentiating PCa from healthy tissue on the basis of curve type, and k was calculated to assess interobserver agreement. Results: Receiver operating characteristic curves were similar for all observers, but mean areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve were poor (0.58 ± 0.04 [standard deviation] to 0.63 ± 0.04). No differences in accuracy were seen for varying DCE time resolution and imaging length. Observer agreement in assessment of type 3 versus types 1 or 2 curves was substantial (0.66 < k < 0.79), better for PCa ROIs than for healthy-tissue ROIs. The agreement between type 1 and type 2 curves was moderate to substantial (0.49 < k < 0.78). Conclusion: Qualitative DCE MR imaging time-curve-type analysis performs poorly for differentiation of PCa from healthy prostatic tissue. Interobserver agreement is excellent in assessment of type 3 curves but only moderate for type 1 and 2 curves.",
author = "Barry Hansford and Yahui Peng and Yulei Jiang and Vannier, {Michael W.} and Tatjana Antic and Stephen Thomas and Stephanie McCann and Aytekin Oto",
year = "2015",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1148/radiol.14140847",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "275",
pages = "448--457",
journal = "Radiology",
issn = "0033-8419",
publisher = "Radiological Society of North America Inc.",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging curve-type analysis

T2 - Is it helpful in the differentiation of prostate cancer from healthy peripheral zone?

AU - Hansford, Barry

AU - Peng, Yahui

AU - Jiang, Yulei

AU - Vannier, Michael W.

AU - Antic, Tatjana

AU - Thomas, Stephen

AU - McCann, Stephanie

AU - Oto, Aytekin

PY - 2015/1/1

Y1 - 2015/1/1

N2 - Purpose: To evaluate the performance and interobserver agreement of qualitative dynamic contrast material-enhanced magnetic resonance (MR) imaging curve analysis as described in the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PIRADS) for the differentiation of prostate cancer (PCa) from healthy prostatic tissue in the peripheral zone (PZ). Materials and Methods: This Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant institutional review board-approved retrospective analysis included 120 consecutive pretreatment dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MR imaging PCa examinations. Regions of interest (ROIs) were placed in 251 spots, including 95 (37.8%) in healthy PZ tissue and 156 (62.2%) in PCa, by using detailed histologic-multiparametric MR correlation review. Three radiologists reviewed the DCE time curves and assessed qualitative curve types as described in PI-RADS: type 1 (progressive), type 2 (plateau), or type 3 (washout). Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was used to assess accuracy in differentiating PCa from healthy tissue on the basis of curve type, and k was calculated to assess interobserver agreement. Results: Receiver operating characteristic curves were similar for all observers, but mean areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve were poor (0.58 ± 0.04 [standard deviation] to 0.63 ± 0.04). No differences in accuracy were seen for varying DCE time resolution and imaging length. Observer agreement in assessment of type 3 versus types 1 or 2 curves was substantial (0.66 < k < 0.79), better for PCa ROIs than for healthy-tissue ROIs. The agreement between type 1 and type 2 curves was moderate to substantial (0.49 < k < 0.78). Conclusion: Qualitative DCE MR imaging time-curve-type analysis performs poorly for differentiation of PCa from healthy prostatic tissue. Interobserver agreement is excellent in assessment of type 3 curves but only moderate for type 1 and 2 curves.

AB - Purpose: To evaluate the performance and interobserver agreement of qualitative dynamic contrast material-enhanced magnetic resonance (MR) imaging curve analysis as described in the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PIRADS) for the differentiation of prostate cancer (PCa) from healthy prostatic tissue in the peripheral zone (PZ). Materials and Methods: This Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant institutional review board-approved retrospective analysis included 120 consecutive pretreatment dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MR imaging PCa examinations. Regions of interest (ROIs) were placed in 251 spots, including 95 (37.8%) in healthy PZ tissue and 156 (62.2%) in PCa, by using detailed histologic-multiparametric MR correlation review. Three radiologists reviewed the DCE time curves and assessed qualitative curve types as described in PI-RADS: type 1 (progressive), type 2 (plateau), or type 3 (washout). Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was used to assess accuracy in differentiating PCa from healthy tissue on the basis of curve type, and k was calculated to assess interobserver agreement. Results: Receiver operating characteristic curves were similar for all observers, but mean areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve were poor (0.58 ± 0.04 [standard deviation] to 0.63 ± 0.04). No differences in accuracy were seen for varying DCE time resolution and imaging length. Observer agreement in assessment of type 3 versus types 1 or 2 curves was substantial (0.66 < k < 0.79), better for PCa ROIs than for healthy-tissue ROIs. The agreement between type 1 and type 2 curves was moderate to substantial (0.49 < k < 0.78). Conclusion: Qualitative DCE MR imaging time-curve-type analysis performs poorly for differentiation of PCa from healthy prostatic tissue. Interobserver agreement is excellent in assessment of type 3 curves but only moderate for type 1 and 2 curves.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84929000787&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84929000787&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1148/radiol.14140847

DO - 10.1148/radiol.14140847

M3 - Article

C2 - 25559231

AN - SCOPUS:84929000787

VL - 275

SP - 448

EP - 457

JO - Radiology

JF - Radiology

SN - 0033-8419

IS - 2

ER -