SIGNIFICANCE OF ADC MEASUREMENTS AS RADIOLOGICAL MRI MARKER IN DETECTION OF METASTATIC LYMPH NODE INVOLVEMENT IN PATIENTS WITH PROSTATE CANCER
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32471/exp-oncology.2312-8852.vol-44-no-2.17810Keywords:
apparent diffusion coefficient, early detection, lymph node metastasis, magnetic resonance imaging, prostate cancerAbstract
Background: In spite of significant advances in diagnosis of prostate cancer (PCa), the detection and differential diagnosis of metastatic lymph node involvement remains an important clinical dilemma in a large number of cases. Contrast-enhanced abdominal computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), in part when using T1-weighed images (T1-WI and T2-WI), allow evaluating indirectly the presence of invasion in regional lymph nodes by assessing their diameter and morphology. Nonetheless, these techniques do not appear to be sufficiently sensitive for direct identification of lymph nodes with metastatic lesions. Aim: To study the significance of the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) of diffusion-weighted MRI in detection of metastatic lymph node involvement in PCa patients. Materials and Methods: The study involved 35 patients with histologically verified PCa. Based on multiparametric prostatic MRI findings and pathomorphological reports, we have performed ADC measurements for pelvic lymph nodes either with (n = 15, mean size 1.78 ± 0.59 cm) or without metastases (n = 20, mean size: 0.94 ± 0.06 cm) in PCa patients who underwent radical prostatectomy with lymph node dissection. Results: No significant differences were observed when comparing mean sizes of N+ and N– pelvic lymph nodes. At the same time, when comparing mean ADC values for N+ and N– pelvic lymph nodes, we observed a statistically significant difference: 0.74 ± 0.09 · 10-3 mm2/s in metastatic lymph node vs 1.05 ± 0.23 · 10-3 mm2/s in lymph nodes without metastatic involvement (p < 0.001). Conclusion: The use of ADC for diffusion-weighted MRI may provide valuable information for detection of metastatic lymph node involvement in patients with PCa.
References
Barsouk A, Padala SA, Vakiti A, et al. Epidemiology, staging and management of prostate. Cancer 2020; 8: 28. https://doi.org/10.3390/medsci8030028
Pilleron S, Soto-Perez-de-Celis E, Vignat J, et al. Estimated global cancer incidence in the oldest adults in 2018 and projections to 2050. Int J Cancer 2021; 148: 601-8. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.33232
Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2020. Cancer J Clin 2020 70: 7–30. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21590
Fedorenko ZP, Mykhailovych YuI, Hulak LO. Cancer in Ukraine, 2019–2020. Bull Nat Cancer Reg Ukraine 2019; 22 (in Ukrainian).
Vozianov SO. Primary overall incidence of and mortality due to the principal genitourinary disease in the context of activity of SI «Institute of Urology of the NAMS of Ukraine». Urolohiya 2015; 19: 15–28 (in Ukrainian).
Vozianov SO, Shamraiev SM, Leonenko AM. Comparative analysis of the results of retropubic and minimally invasive radical prostatectomy. Zdorov’e Muzhchiny 2017; 2: 29–36 (in Russian).
Chernychenko IO, Lytvychenko OM, Tsymbaliuk SM, et al. Investigation of prevalence and incidence of hormone-dependent forms of thyroid cancer, prostate cancer and breast cancer in Ukraine. Probl Endocr Pathol 2020; 1: 72–9 (in Ukrainian).
Hamdy FC, Donovan JL, Lane JA, et al. 10-Year outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2016; 13: 1415–24. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1606220
Tosoian JJ, Mamawala M, Epstein JI, et al. Intermediate and longer-term outcomes from a prospective active-surveillance program for favorable-risk prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2015; 33: 3379–85. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2015.62.5764
Bruinsma SM, Roobol MJ, Carroll PR, et al. Expert consensus document: Semantics in active surveillance for men with localized prostate cancer — results of a modified Delphi consensus procedure. Nat Rev Urol 2017; 14: 312–22. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrurol.2017.26
Vozianov SO, Shamraiev SM, Leonenko AM. Using the National Cancer Institute conditions concept for integral outcome assessment of modified endoscopic radical prostatectomy in patients with localized prostate cancer in a setting of State Institution «Institute of Urology of the NAMS of Ukraine». Urolohiya 2020; 24: 217–21 (in Ukrainian).
Stakhovskyi EO, Vitruk YuV, Voilenko OA, et al. Finasteride in the prevention of prostate cancer progression. Zdorov’e Muzhchiny 2015; 4: 61–5. (in Russian).
Hryhorenko VM, Vikarchuk MV, Danylets RO, et al. Prognostic stratification of clinically locally advanced prostate cancer. Klin Khirurgiya 2016; 9: 39–42 (in Ukrainian).
Egevad L, Swanberg D, Delahunt B, et al. Identification of areas of grading difficulties in prostate cancer and comparison with artificial intelligence assisted grading. Virchows Arch Int J Pathol 2020; 477: 777–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00428-020-02858-w
Mishra SC. A discussion on controversies and ethical dilemmas in prostate cancer screening. J Med Ethics 2020; 6; medethics-2019-105979. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2019-105979
Brönimann S, Pradere B, Karakiewicz P, et al. An overview of current and emerging diagnostic, staging and prognostic markers for prostate cancer. Expert Rev Mol Diagn 2020: 20: 841–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/14737159.2020.1785288
Kiss B, Thoeny HC, Studer UE. Current status of lymph node imaging in bladder and prostate cancer. Urology 2016; 96: 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2016.02.014
Zarzour JG, Galgano S, McConathy J, et al. Lymph node imaging in initial staging of prostate cancer: An overview and update. World J Radiol 2017; 28: 389–99. https://doi.org/10.4329/wjr.v9.i10.389
Gabriele D, Collura D, Oderda M, et al. Is there still a role for computed tomography and bone scintigraphy in prostate cancer staging? An analysis from the EUREKA-1 database. World J Urol 2016; 34: 517–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-015-1669-2
Zelic R, Garmo H, Zugna D, et al. Predicting prostate cancer death with different pretreatment risk stratification tools: a head-to-head comparison in a nationwide cohort study. Eur Urol 2020; 77: 180–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2019.09.027
Gandaglia G, Ploussard G, Valerio M, et al. The key combined value of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging, and magnetic resonance imaging-targeted and concomitant systematic biopsies for the prediction of adverse pathological features in prostate cancer patients undergoing radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2020; 77: 733–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2019.09.005
Draulans C, Everaerts W, Isebaert S, et al. Development and external validation of a multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and international society of urological pathology based add-on prediction tool to identify prostate cancer candidates for pelvic lymph node dissection. J Urol 2020; 203: 713–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000000652
Gandaglia G, Martini A, Ploussard G, et al. External validation of the 2019 Briganti nomogram for the identification of prostate cancer patients who should be considered for an extended pelvic lymph node dissection. Eur Urol 2020; 78: 138–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2020.03.023
Hofman MS, Lawrentschuk N, Francis RJ, et al. Prostate-specific membrane antigen PET-CT in patients with high-risk prostate cancer before curative-intent surgery or radiotherapy (proPSMA): a prospective, randomised, multicentre study. Lancet 2020; 11: 1208–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30314-7
Zacho HD, Fonager RF, Nielsen JB, et al. Observer agreement and accuracy of 18F-sodium fluoride PET/CT in the diagnosis of bone metastases in prostate cancer. J Nucl Med 2020; 61: 344–9. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.119.232686
Werner RA, Derlin T, Lapa C, et al. 18F-Labeled, PSMA-targeted radiotracers: leveraging the advantages of radiofluorination for prostate cancer molecular imaging. Theranostics 2020; 10: 1–16. https://doi.org/10.7150/thno.37894
Korol PO, Tkachenko MM, Shcherbina OV. Multimodal imaging of prostate cancer. Nyrky 2020; 9: 68–79 (in Ukrainian).
Mottet N, van den Bergh RCN, 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. Eur Urol 2021; 79: 243–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
Wu H, Xu T, Wang X, et al. Diagnostic performance of 68Gallium labelled prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography/computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging for staging the prostate cancer with intermediate or high risk prior to radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Mens Health 2020; 38: 208–19 https://doi.org/10.55347
Plouznikoff N, Woff E, Artigas C, et al. Incidental detection of a radiation-induced soft-tissue sarcoma on 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT in a patient previously treated for prostate cancer. Clin Nucl Med 2019: 44: 501–2. https://doi.org/10.1097/RLU.0000000000002592
Puchalski AL, Magill C. Imaging gently. Emerg Med Clin North Am 2018: 36: 349–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emc.2017.12.003
Safronova OV, Udatova TV, Kmetiuk YaV, et al. Evaluation of radiation exposure of pelvic organs when using modern techniques of external beam radiation therapy in radiation treatment of prostate cancer. Promeneva Diagn Promeneva Terap 2016; 1: 65–8 (in Ukrainian).
Schumann S, Scherthan H, Frank T, et al. DNA damage in blood leukocytes of prostate cancer patients undergoing PET/CT examinations with [68Ga]Ga-PSMA I&T. Cancers 2020; 7: 12.
Mathews JD, Forsythe AV, Brady Z, et al. Cancer risk in 680,000 people exposed to computed tomography scans in childhood or adolescence: data linkage study of 11 million Australians. BMJ 2013; 346: f2360. https://doi.org/10.1136
Svirydenka H, Muehlematter UJ, Nagel HW, et al. 68Ga-PSMA-11 dose reduction for dedicated pelvic imaging with simultaneous PET/MR using TOF BSREM reconstructions. Eur Radiol 2020; 30: 3188–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-06667-2
Evangelista L, Zattoni F, Cassarino G, et al. PET/MRI in prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2021; 48: 859–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-020-05025-0
Mytsyk Y, Pasichnyk S, Dutka I, et al. Systemic treatment of the metastatic renal cell carcinoma: usefulness of the apparent diffusion coefficient of diffusion-weighted MRI in prediction of early therapeutic response. Clin Exp Med 2020; 20: 277–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10238-020-00612-9
Mytsyk Y, Borzhiyevskyy A, Dutka I, et al. Local recurrence of renal cell carcinoma after partial nephrectomy: applicability of the apparent diffusion coefficient of MRI as an imaging marker — a multicentre study. Polish J Radiol 2022; 87: 325–32. https://doi.org/10.5114/pjr.2022.117593
Mytsyk Y, Borzhiyevs’kyy A, Kobilnyk Y, et al. Personalized management of prostate cancer: from molecular and imaging markers to radiogenomics. Polish J Radiol 2022; 87: 58–62. https://doi.org/10.5114/pjr.2022.113204
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Experimental Oncology
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
