loading page

Apparent Diffusion Coefficient (ADC) Values as a Complementary Tool in the Prostate Gland Disease: A Prospective Evaluation of Apparent Diffusion Coefficient (ADC) Values with Pathological Data
  • +1
  • GÜLŞEN YÜCEL OĞUZDOĞAN,
  • Zehra Hilal Adıbelli,
  • Ertugrul Sefik,
  • Fatma Zeynep Arslan
GÜLŞEN YÜCEL OĞUZDOĞAN
University of Health Sciences Izmir Bozyaka Education and Research Hospital

Corresponding Author:gulsenyuceloguzdogan@gmail.com

Author Profile
Zehra Hilal Adıbelli
University of Health Sciences Izmir Bozyaka Education and Research Hospital
Author Profile
Ertugrul Sefik
University of Health Sciences Izmir Bozyaka Education and Research Hospital
Author Profile
Fatma Zeynep Arslan
Basaksehir Cam and Sakura City Hospital
Author Profile

Abstract

Background:This prospective study aims to reveal whether the lesion is a benign pathological process or malignant by measuring ADC values under PI-RADSv2.1 guidance on MpMRI examinations. Additionally, the paper evaluates whether there is a correlation between malignant lesions’ pathological grade and ADC values, and whether ADC values provide noninvasive information about prostate cancer aggressiveness. Purpose:To determine the cut-off ADC values that may exist to identify and distinguish between benign and malignant lesions and also identify cancers with an ISUP score≥2 and cancers with an ISUP score1 defined as silent disease. Methods:This study includes 243 patients and they were diagnosed with TRUS-guided cognitive MRI fusion as tissue diagnosis. MpMRI images were evaluated before biopsy according to PI-RADSv2.1 guideline by a radiologist. Three groups which are benign prostatic tissue, prostatitis, prostate cancer, were obtained according to the histopathological results. Results: When the cut-off value for ADC is 780 x10-3, sensitivity was 80%. When the cut-off value was taken as 668 x10-3, the sensitivity was found to be 72% and specificity 62%. When the cut-off ADC value was taken as 647 x10-3, the sensitivity was 83% and the specificity was 48.5%. ADC values varied significantly according to ISUP groups [p= 0.003]. It was determined that ISUP 1 group was significantly higher than each of the other groups. ADC group mean values did not show a statistically significant difference between Group 2,3,4 and 5. Conclusion:ADC value shows significant potential, and may it improve the diagnostic accuracy.