Comparison of Diffusion Kurtosis Imaging and Amide Proton Transfer Imaging in the Diagnosis and Risk Assessment of Prostate Cancer

This study aims to evaluate and compare the diagnostic value of DKI and APT in prostate cancer (PCa), and their correlation with Gleason Score (GS). DKI and APT imaging of 49 patients with PCa and 51 patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) were collected and analyzed, respectively. Accordin...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Frontiers in oncology 2021-04, Vol.11, p.640906-640906
Hauptverfasser: Yin, Huijia, Wang, Dongdong, Yan, Ruifang, Jin, Xingxing, Hu, Ying, Zhai, Zhansheng, Duan, Jinhui, Zhang, Jian, Wang, Kaiyu, Han, Dongming
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:This study aims to evaluate and compare the diagnostic value of DKI and APT in prostate cancer (PCa), and their correlation with Gleason Score (GS). DKI and APT imaging of 49 patients with PCa and 51 patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) were collected and analyzed, respectively. According to the GS, the patients with PCa were divided into high-risk, intermediate-risk and low-risk groups. The mean kurtosis (MK), mean diffusion (MD) and magnetization transfer ratio asymmetry (MTRasym, 3.5 ppm) values among PCa, BPH, and different GS groups of PCa were compared and analyzed respectively. The diagnostic accuracy of each parameter was evaluated by using the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. The correlation between each parameter and GS was analyzed by using Spearman's rank correlation. The MK and MTRasym (3.5 ppm) values were significantly higher in PCa group than in BPH group, while the MD value was significantly lower than in BPH group. The differences of MK/MD/MTRasym (3.5 ppm) between any two of the low-risk, intermediate-risk, and high-risk groups were all statistically significant (p
ISSN:2234-943X
2234-943X
DOI:10.3389/fonc.2021.640906