表观扩散系数值在预测低中危前列腺癌Gleason分级中的价值-东南大学学报医学版

表观扩散系数值在预测低中危前列腺癌Gleason分级中的价值

作者：闫旭¹ 马柯¹ 王玉婷² 潘燚琪³ 祝丽² 马义² 李丹燕² 麦筱莉¹ 2 3

单位：1. 徐州医科大学鼓楼临床学院医学影像科, 江苏南京 210008;
2. 南京大学医学院附属鼓楼医院医学影像科, 江苏南京 210008;
3. 南京医科大学鼓楼临床医学院医学影像科, 江苏南京 210008

分类号：R445.2

出版年·卷·期（页码）：2024·43·第二期（183-190）

摘要：

目的: 探讨表观扩散系数(ADC)值对低中危前列腺癌(PCa)的诊断效能及其与Gleason评分(GS)之间的相关性。方法: 收集2020年1月至2021年12月南京鼓楼医院前列腺受检者的临床影像数据进行回顾性分析。测量病灶的ADC值,分析ADC在低中危PCa诊断中的效能,以及ADC值与GS之间的相关性,比较平均表观扩散系数值(ADC_mean)和最小表观扩散系数值(ADC_min)的诊断效能。结果: 纳入1 051例患者,病灶总数为1 202个,其中638个为PCa(53.08%),564个为良性病变(46.92%)。良性病变组的ADC_min及ADC_mean明显高于PCa组,差异具有统计学意义(P<0.01)。GS 4+3组的ADC_min及ADC_mean显著低于GS 3+4组、GS 3+3组和良性组,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.01)。诊断PCa的ADC_min和ADC_mean的AUC分别为0.911、0.972,诊断界值分别为0.703×10^-3 mm²·s^-1、0.896×10^-3 mm²·s^-1。ADC_min、ADC_mean与GS呈负性相关(ρ_s=-0.764,P<0.001;ρ_s=-0.845,P<0.001)。结论: ADC值与低中危PCa侵袭性呈负相关,对GS 3+4、GS 4+3病灶具有较高的鉴别诊断价值,敏感度、特异度高,且ADC_mean的诊断价值更高,可对PCa生物学特性进行有效的术前评估,辅助临床医师制订治疗方案,有效避免过度治疗。

Objective: To investigate the diagnostic performance of the apparent diffusion coefficient(ADC) for low to intermediate-risk prostate cancer(PCa), as well as its correlation with the prognostic Gleason score(GS).Methods: The images and data from prostate examination patients at Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital were collected for retrospective analysis spanning January 2020 to December 2021. During this analysis, the ADC values of lesions were measured to assess the efficacy of ADC in diagnosing low to intermediate-risk PCa. Additionally, the correlation between ADC values and GS was investigated,and the diagnostic efficacy between mean apparent diffusion coefficient values(ADC_mean) and minimum apparent diffusion coefficient values(ADC_min) was compared.Results: Among the 1 051 patients, there were a total of 1 202 lesions, with 638 cases identified as PCa(53.08%) and 564 cases as benign lesions(46.92%). The benign lesion group exhibited significantly higher ADC_min and ADC_mean values compared to the PCa group, and these differences were statistically significant(P<0.01). In terms of GS, the ADC_min and ADC_mean values of the GS 4+3 group were significantly lower than those of the GS 3+4 group, GS 3+3 group, and the benign group, with all differences being statistically significant(P<0.01). The AUC values for diagnosing PCa based on ADC_min and ADC_mean were 0.911 and 0.972, respectively. The corresponding diagnostic thresholds were 0.703×10^-3 mm²·s^-1 for ADC_min and 0.896×10^-3 mm²·s^-1 for ADC_mean. The magnitudes of ADC_min and ADC_mean values exhibited a negative correlation with GS values(ρ_s=-0.764, P<0.001; ρ_s=-0.845, P<0.001).Conclusion: ADC values demonstrate an inverse relationship with the invasiveness of low to intermediate-risk PCa. They offer notable diagnostic value, particularly in distinguishing between GS 3+4 and GS 4+3 lesions, exhibiting both high sensitivity and specificity. Additionally, ADC_mean exhibits even greater diagnostic utility, facilitating effective preoperative assessment of PCa’s biological attributes. This aids clinicians in formulating treatment strategies and mitigating the risk of excessive therapeutic interventions.

参考文献：

[1] SIEGEL R L,MILLER K D,WAGLE N S,et al.Cancer statistics,2023[J].CA Cancer J Clin,2023,73(1):17-48.
[2] 郑荣寿,张思维,孙可欣,等.2016年中国恶性肿瘤流行情况分析[J].中华肿瘤杂志,2023,45(3):212-220.
[3] HINZPETER R,BAUMANN L,GUGGENBERGER R,et al.Radiomics for detecting prostate cancer bone metastases invisible in CT:a proof-of-concept study[J].Eur Radiol,2022,32(3):1823-1832.
[4] KIM M M,WU S,LIN S X,et al.Transperineal multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion targeted prostate biopsy combined with standard template improves prostate cancer detection[J].J Urol,2022,207(1):86-94.
[5] BJURLIN M A,CARROLL P R,EGGENER S,et al.Update of the standard operating procedure on the use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis,staging and management of prostate cancer[J].J Urol,2020,203(4):706-712.
[6] MOTTET N,VAN DEN BERGH R C N,BRIERS E,et al.EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer-2020 update.Part 1:screening,diagnosis,and local treatment with curative intent[J].Eur Urol,2021,79(2):243-262.
[7] TURKBEY B,ROSENKRANTZ A B,HAIDER M A,et al.Prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2.1:2019 update of prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2[J].Eur Urol,2019,76(3):340-351.
[8] ZHOU C K,CHECK D P,LORTET-TIEULENT J,et al.Prostate cancer incidence in 43 populations worldwide:an analysis of time trends overall and by age group[J].Int J Cancer,2016,138(6):1388-1400.
[9] 中国抗癌协会泌尿男生殖系统肿瘤专业委员会前列腺癌学组.前列腺癌筛查中国专家共识(2021年版)[J].中国癌症杂志,2021,31(5):435-440.
[10] SONG Z J,QIAN J K,YANG Y,et al.PSA density in the diagnosis of prostate cancer in the Chinese population:results from the Chinese Prostate Cancer Consortium[J].Asian J Androl,2021,23(3):300-305.
[11] HUGOSSON J,ROOBOL M J,MÅNSSON M,et al.A 16-yr follow-up of the European randomized study of screening for prostate cancer[J].Eur Urol,2019,76(1):43-51.
[12] GLEASON D F.Classification of prostatic carcinomas[J].Cancer Chemother Rep,1966,50(3):125-128.
[13] EPSTEIN J I,EGEVAD L,AMIN M B,et al.The 2014 international society of urological pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma:definition of grading patterns and proposal for a new grading system[J].Am J Surg Pathol,2016,40(2):244-252.
[14] EPSTEIN J I,ALLSBROOK W C Jr,AMIN M B,et al.The 2005 international society of urological pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma[J].Am J Surg Pathol,2005,29(9):1228-1242.
[15] SWANSON G P,TREVATHAN S,HAMMONDS K A P,et al.Gleason score evolution and the effect on prostate cancer outcomes[J].Am J Clin Pathol,2021,155(5):711-717.
[16] ZHU X,GOU X,ZHOU M.Nomograms predict survival advantages of Gleason score 3+4 over 4+3 for prostate cancer:a SEER-based study[J].Front Oncol,2019,9:646.
[17] SRIGLEY J R,DELAHUNT B,SAMARATUNGA H,et al.Controversial issues in Gleason and International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) prostate cancer grading:proposed recommendations for international implementation[J].Pathology,2019,51(5):463-473.
[18] ALESSANDRINO F,TAGHIPOUR M,HASSANZADEH E,et al.Predictive role of PI-RADSv2 and ADC parameters in differentiating Gleason pattern 3+4 and 4+3 prostate cancer[J].Abdom Radiol (NY),2019,44(1):279-285.
[19] 周飞,王国超,曹跃.MRI弥散加权成像在前列腺增生和前列腺癌诊断鉴别中的应用[J].中国CT和MRI杂志,2020,18(9):149-151.
[20] 杨聪,田荣华,康嗣如,等.PI-RADS v2.1中DWI评分和ADC值与前列腺癌Gleason分级分组的相关性[J].中国中西医结合影像学杂志,2023,21(1):48-52.
[21] 一诺,王雅菁,王鹏,等.磁共振表观扩散系数鉴别前列腺癌预后相关风险分层的应用研究[J].磁共振成像,2022,13(12):104-110.
[22] YANG L,WANG L,TAN Y,et al.Amide proton transfer-weighted MRI combined with serum prostate-specific antigen levels for differentiating malignant prostate lesions from benign prostate lesions:a retrospective cohort study[J].Cancer Imaging,2023,23(1):3.
[23] LANGER D L,VAN DER KWAST T H,EVANS A J,et al.Intermixed normal tissue within prostate cancer:effect on MR imaging measurements of apparent diffusion coefficient and T2-sparse versus dense cancers[J].Radiology,2008,249(3):900-908.

服务与反馈：

【文章下载】【发表评论】【查看评论】【加入收藏】

提示：您还未登录，请登录！点此登录