| Title |
Diffusion-weighted imaging of the prostate: should we use quantitative metrics to better characterize focal lesions originating in the peripheral zone?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Radiology, November 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00330-017-5107-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Thibaut Pierre, Francois Cornud, Loïc Colléter, Frédéric Beuvon, Frantz Foissac, Nicolas B. Delongchamps, Paul Legmann |
| Abstract |
To compare inter-reader concordance and accuracy of qualitative diffusion-weighted (DW) PIRADSv2.0 score with those of quantitative DW-MRI for the diagnosis of peripheral zone prostate cancer. Two radiologists independently assigned a DW-MRI-PIRADS score to 92 PZ-foci, in 74 patients (64.3±5.6 years old; median PSA level: 8 ng/ml, normal DRE in 70 men). A standardised ADCmean and nine ADC-derived parameters were measured, including ADCratios with the whole-prostate (WP-ADCratio) or the mirror-PZ (mirror-ADCratio) as reference areas. Surgical histology and MRI-TRUS fusion-biopsy were the reference for tumours and benign foci, respectively. Inter-reader agreement was assessed by the Cohen-kappa-coefficient and the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Univariate-multivariate regressions determined the most predictive factor for cancer. Fifty lesions were malignant. Inter-reader concordance was fair for qualitative assessment, but excellent for quantitative assessment for all quantitative variables. At univariate analysis, ADCmean, WP-ADCratio and WL-ADCmean performed equally, but significantly better than the mirror-ADCratio (p<0.001). At multivariate analysis, the only independent variable significantly associated with malignancy was the whole-prostate-ADCratio. At a cut-off value of 0.68, sensitivity was 94-90 % and specificity was 60-38 % for readers 1 and 2, respectively. The whole-prostate-ADCratio improved the qualitative inter-reader concordance and characterisation of focal PZ-lesions. • Inter-reader concordance of DW PI-RADSv2.0 score for PZ lesions was only fair. • Using a standardised ADCmean measurement and derived DW-quantitative parameters, concordance was excellent. • The whole-prostate ADCratio performed significantly better than the mirror-ADCratio for cancer detection. • At a cut-off of 0.68, sensitivity values of WP-ADCratio were 94-90 %. • The whole-prostate ADCratio may circumvent variations of ADC metrics across centres. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 67% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 33% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 24 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 4 | 17% |
| Other | 3 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 13% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 7 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 50% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 4% |
| Sports and Recreations | 1 | 4% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 8 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 March 2018.
All research outputs
#14,369,287
of 23,009,818 outputs
Outputs from European Radiology
#2,190
of 4,169 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#236,083
of 437,850 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Radiology
#29
of 62 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,009,818 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,169 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 437,850 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 62 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.