Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the predictive roles of qualitative (PI-RADSv2) and quantitative assessment (ADC metrics), in differentiating Gleason pattern (GP) 3 + 4 from the more aggressive GP 4 + 3 prostate cancer (PCa) using radical prostatectomy (RP) specimen as the reference standard. METHODS: We retrospectively identified treatment-naïve peripheral (PZ) and transitional zone (TZ) Gleason Score 7 PCa patients who underwent multiparametric 3T prostate MRI (DWI with b value of 0,1400 and where unavailable, 0,500) and subsequent RP from 2011 to 2015. For each lesion identified on MRI, a PI-RADSv2 score was assigned by a radiologist blinded to pathology data. A PI-RADSv2 score ≤ 3 was defined as "low risk," a PI-RADSv2 score ≥ 4 as "high risk" for clinically significant PCa. Mean tumor ADC (ADC(T)), ADC of adjacent normal tissue (ADC(N)), and ADC(ratio) (ADC(T)/ADC(N)) were calculated. Stepwise regression analysis using tumor location, ADC(T) and ADC(ratio), b value, low vs. high PI-RADSv2 score was performed to differentiate GP 3 + 4 from 4 + 3. RESULTS: 119 out of 645 cases initially identified met eligibility requirements. 76 lesions were GP 3 + 4, 43 were 4 + 3. ADC(ratio) was significantly different between the two GP groups (p = 0.001). PI-RADSv2 score ("low" vs. "high") was not significantly different between the two GP groups (p = 0.17). Regression analysis selected ADC(T) (p = 0.03) and ADC(ratio) (p = 0.0007) as best predictors to differentiate GP 4 + 3 from 3 + 4. Estimated sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of the predictive model in differentiating GP 4 + 3 from 3 + 4 were 37, 82, and 66%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: ADC metrics could differentiate GP 3 + 4 from 4 + 3 PCa with high specificity and moderate accuracy while PI-RADSv2, did not differentiate between these patterns.