Evaluation of Weighted Diffusion Subtraction for Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer

Diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) is an important method for clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) diagnosis; however, the Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) requires the subjective assessment of "markedly hypointense or not" on apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) map. We hypothesize that weighted diffusion subtraction (WDS) images, created by weighted subtraction of high and low b-value DWIs, might better show areas of ADC values below a set threshold, thus decreasing the subjectivity of the assessment.

To evaluate the diagnostic ability of WDS for csPCa by comparing scores based on WDS images (DWI/WDS) with those based on PI-RADS DWI (DWI/ADC).

Retrospective.

Eighty-six PCa patients.

3.0 T; DWI.

Four readers assessed the probability of csPCa in lesions (overall, in the peripheral zone [PZ] and transitional zone [TZ]) using 5-point DWI/ADC and DWI/WDS scores. Prostatectomy specimens were the reference standard. ADC values and contrast between csPCa and normal prostate tissue on ADC maps and WDS images were calculated with reference to the pathological map.

Diagnostic ability was evaluated by Jackknife alternative free-response receiver-operating characteristic curve. Figure of merit (FOM), sensitivity, and positive predictive value (PPV) between the DWI/ADC and DWI/WDS scores were compared using paired t-test. Inter-reader agreement was analyzed using κ statistics, and the significance probability was calculated using the Z statistic. Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare contrast between csPCa and normal prostate tissue on ADC maps and WDS images. A P value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

FOM and sensitivity of the DWI/WDS scores were significantly better than those of the DWI/ADC scores overall, in the PZ and TZ (FOM: overall, 0.715 vs. 0.783; PZ, 0.756 vs. 0.815; TZ, 0.653 vs. 0.738. Sensitivity: overall, 0.512 vs. 0.607; PZ, 0.485 vs. 0.573; TZ, 0.636 vs. 0.761). For PPV, a statistically significant difference was observed overall (0.727 vs. 0.777). The κ value of DWI/WDS score was significantly higher than that of DWI/ADC score overall and in the PZ (overall, 0.614 vs. 0.792; PZ, 0.609 vs. 0.797). Contrast was significantly higher overall in the PZ and TZ in WDS images (median, 1.26, 1.19, and 1.61) than in ADC maps (0.46, 0.47, and 0.41).

WDS images performed better than ADC maps in the diagnosis of csPCa and in inter-reader agreement of the diagnosis.

4 Technical Efficacy Stage: 2.