Do the variations in ROI placement technique have influence for prostate ADC measurements?. (12th March 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Ueno, Yoshiko; Tamada, Tsutomu; Sofue, Keitaro; Urase, Yasuyo; Hinata, Nobuyuki; Fujisawa, Masato; Murakami, Takamichi
• Is Part Of: Acta radiologica open. Volume 11:Number 3(2022)
• Publication Date: 2022-03-12
• Subjects: Prostate neoplasms -- magnetic resonance imaging -- diffusion-weighted imaging -- apparent diffusion coefficient; Radiology -- Periodicals; Diagnostic Imaging -- Periodicals; Radiology; Periodicals; 616.075705
• DOI: 10.1177/20584601221086500
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2058-4601

Abstract

Background: Prostate apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values calculated from diffusion-weighted imaging have been used for evaluating prostate cancer (PCa) aggressiveness. However, the way of measuring ADC values has varied depending on the study. Purpose: To investigate inter- and intra-reader variability and diagnostic performance of three kinds of shaped 2D regions of interests (ROIs) for tumor ADC measurements in PCa. Material and Methods: Seventy-four patients with PCa undergoing 3-T MRI before surgery were included. Histologic findings from radical prostatectomy specimens were reviewed to define each patient's dominant tumor. Three readers independently measured the tumor ADCs using three different ROI methods: freehand, large-circle, and small-circles ROIs. Readers repeated measurements after 3 weeks. Bland-Altman analysis was performed to evaluate the inter- and intra-reader variability. Receiver Operating Characteristic analysis was used for assessment of tumor aggressiveness for PCa. Results: For intra-reader and inter-reader variability, the mean coefficient of repeatability for freehand ROIs, large-circle ROIs, and small-circles ROIs were as follows: 13.7%, 12.4%, and 11.5%; 9.4%, 9.7%, and 9.5%. For differentiating Gleason score (GS) = 3 + 3 from GS ≥ 3 + 4 tumors, the area under the curves were 0.90 for freehand ROIs, 0.89 for large-circle ROIs, and 0.94 small-circles ROIs ( p = 0.31). Conclusion: The variations in ROI method did not have a major influence on intra-reader or inter-reader reproducibility or diagnostic performance for prostate ADC measurements.