Comparative Study of Monoexponential, Intravoxel Incoherent Motion, Kurtosis, and IVIM-Kurtosis Models for the Diagnosis and Aggressiveness Assessment of Prostate Cancer

Ying Liu; Xuan Wang; Yadong Cui; Yuwei Jiang; Lu Yu; Ming Liu; Wei Zhang; Kaining Shi; Jintao Zhang; Chen Zhang; Chunmei Li; Min Chen

doi:10.3389/fonc.2020.01763

Comparative Study of Monoexponential, Intravoxel Incoherent Motion, Kurtosis, and IVIM-Kurtosis Models for the Diagnosis and Aggressiveness Assessment of Prostate Cancer

Front Oncol. 2020 Sep 11:10:1763. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2020.01763. eCollection 2020.

Authors

Ying Liu^{1

2}, Xuan Wang³, Yadong Cui¹, Yuwei Jiang¹, Lu Yu¹, Ming Liu³, Wei Zhang⁴, Kaining Shi⁵, Jintao Zhang¹, Chen Zhang¹, Chunmei Li¹, Min Chen¹

Affiliations

¹ Department of Radiology, Beijing Hospital, National Center of Gerontology, Institute of Geriatric Medicine, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, China.
² Department of Radiology, Civil Aviation General Hospital, Civil Aviation Clinical Medical College of Peking University, Beijing, China.
³ Department of Urology, Beijing Hospital, National Center of Gerontology, Institute of Geriatric Medicine, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, China.
⁴ Department of Pathology, Beijing Hospital, National Center of Gerontology, Institute of Geriatric Medicine, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, China.
⁵ Philips Healthcare, Beijing, China.

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to compare the potential of monoexponential model (MEM), intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) model, kurtosis model, and IVIM-kurtosis model in the diagnosis and aggressiveness assessment of prostate cancer (PCa). Materials and Methods: Thirty-six patients were recruited. Diffusion-weighted images were acquired on a 3.0-T magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) system using 0 b values up to 2,000 s/mm² and analyzed using four models: MEM (ADC_MEM), IVIM (D _IVIM, D*_IVIM, f _IVIM), kurtosis (D _kurtosis, K _kurtosis), and IVIM-kurtosis (D _{IVIM-kurtosis}, D ^* _{IVIM-kurtosis}, f _{IVIM-kurtosis}, D _{IVIM-kurtosis}) models. The values of these parameters were calculated and compared between PCa, benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), and prostatitis. Correlations between these parameters and the Gleason score (GS) of PCa were evaluated using the Pearson test. Results: Forty-five lesions were studied, including 18 PCa, 12 prostatitis, and 15 BPH lesions. The ADC_MEM, D _IVIM, f _IVIM, D _kurtosis, and D _{IVIM-kurtosis} values were significantly lower and K _kurtosis and K _{IVIM-kurtosis} values were significantly higher in PCa compared with prostatitis and BPH. The area under the curve (AUC) of ADC_MEM showed significantly higher values than that of f _IVIM and K _{IVIM-kurtosis}, but no statistical differences were found between the other parameters. The D ^* _{IVIM-kurtosis} value correlated negatively and f _{IVIM-kurtosis} and K _{IVIM-kurtosis} values correlated positively with the GS. Conclusion: The MEM, IVIM, kurtosis, and IVIM-kurtosis models were all useful for the diagnosis of PCa, and the diagnostic efficacy seemed to be similar. The IVIM-kurtosis model may be superior to the MEM, IVIM, and kurtosis models in the grading of PCa.

Keywords: IVIM–kurtosis model; benign prostatic hyperplasia; intravoxel incoherent motion model; kurtosis model; monoexponential model; prostate cancer; prostatitis.