Related Experiment Video For PI-RADS
Updated: Aug 8, 2025
Tracking the Mammary Architectural Features and Detecting Breast Cancer with Magnetic Resonance Diffusion Tensor Imaging
Published on: December 15, 2014
Sub-differentiation of PI-RADS 3 lesions in TZ by advanced diffusion-weighted imaging to aid the biopsy decision
Kun-Peng Zhou1, Hua-Bin Huang1, Chao Bu1
1Seventh Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Shenzhen, China.
Background:
Performing biopsy for intermediate lesions with PI-RADS 3 has always been controversial. Moreover, it is difficult to differentiate prostate cancer (PCa) and benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) nodules in PI-RADS 3 lesions by conventional scans, especially for transition zone (TZ) lesions. The purpose of this study is sub-differentiation of transition zone (TZ) PI-RADS 3 lesions using intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM), stretched exponential model, and diffusion kurtosis imaging (DKI) to aid the biopsy decision process.
Methods:
A total of 198 TZ PI-RADS 3 lesions were included. 149 lesions were BPH, while 49 lesions were PCa, including 37 non-clinical significant PCa (non-csPCa) lesions and 12 clinical significant PCa (csPCa) lesions. Binary logistic regression analysis was used to examine which parameters could predict PCa in TZ PI-RADS 3 lesions. The ROC curve was used to test diagnostic efficiency in distinguishing PCa from TZ PI-RADS 3 lesions, while one-way ANOVA analysis was used to examine which parameters were statistically significant among BPH, non-csPCa and csPCa.
Results:
The logistic model was statistically significant (χ2 = 181.410, p<0.001) and could correctly classify 89.39% of the subjects. Parameters of fractional anisotropy (FA) (p=0.004), mean diffusion (MD) (p=0.005), mean kurtosis (MK) (p=0.015), diffusion coefficient (D) (p=0.001), and distribute diffusion coefficient (DDC) (p=0.038) were statistically significant in the model. ROC analysis showed that AUC was 0.9197 (CI 95%: 0.8736-0.9659). Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value were 92.1%, 80.4%, 93.9% and 75.5%, respectively. FA and MK of csPCa were higher than those of non-csPCa (all p<0.05), while MD, ADC, D, and DDC of csPCa were lower than those of non-csPCa (all p<0.05).
Conclusion:
FA, MD, MK, D, and DDC can predict PCa in TZ PI-RADS 3 lesions and inform the decision-making process of whether or not to perform a biopsy. Moreover, FA, MD, MK, D, DDC, and ADC may have ability to identify csPCa and non-csPCa in TZ PI-RADS 3 lesions.
