Generic placeholder image

Current Medical Imaging

Editor-in-Chief

ISSN (Print): 1573-4056
ISSN (Online): 1875-6603

Research Article

The Evaluation of Clinical and Intravoxel Incoherent Motion Parameters of Primary Lesion in Oligometastatic Prostate Cancer

Author(s): Shuang Meng, Lihua Chen, Nan Wang, Yunsong Liu and Ailian Liu*

Volume 20, 2024

Published on: 25 March, 2024

Article ID: e15734056248787 Pages: 8

DOI: 10.2174/0115734056248787231025072754

Price: $65

Abstract

Background: In the realm of cancer studies,the differences among the biological behavior of oligometastatic prostate cancer (OPCa), localized prostate cancer (LPCa), and widely prostate cancer (WPCa) are still unclear.

Objectives: The purpose of our study was to assess the clinical and intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) parameters of tumor burden in OPCa. In addition, the correlation between clinical and IVIM parameters and the prostate-specific antigen nadir (PSAN) and time to nadir (TTN) during initial androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in OPCa was explored. It was found that the IVIM parameters could effectively differentiate LPCa and WPCa, as well as LPCa and OPC. Moreover, Gleason score (GS) was positively correlated with PSAN, while prostate volume was positively correlated with TTN.

Methods: About 54 patients were included in this retrospective study (mean age=74±7.4 years). ADC, D, D*, and f were acquired according to the biexponential Diffusion Weighted Imaging (DWI) model. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to test the differences in clinical and IVIM parameters among the three groups. The Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve was used to evaluate the discrimination abilities. The Area Under the Curve (AUC) was compared using the DeLong test. Furthermore, Spearman correlation analysis was performed to assess the correlation between clinical and IVIM parameters of PSAN and TTN during initial ADT with OPCa.

Results: There were significant differences among the three groups observed for age, PSA, GS, ADC, D and D* values (P<0.05). Multi-parameter pairwise comparison results showed that significant differences between LPCa and WPCa were observed for the age, PSA, GS, ADC, D and D* values (P<0.05). However, D* was different between the LPCa and OPCa groups (P=0.032). GS showed a significant positive correlation with PSAN (Rho=0.594, P=0.042), and prostate volume showed a significant positive correlation with TTN (Rho=0.777, P=0.003).

Conclusions: The IVIM parameters can effectively differentiate LPCa and WPCa, as well as LPCa and OPCa. Moreover, there was a certain trend in their distribution, which could reflect the tumor burden of PCa.


Rights & Permissions Print Cite
© 2024 Bentham Science Publishers | Privacy Policy