Accuracy of fractal analysis and PI-RADS assessment of prostate magnetic resonance imaging for prediction of cancer grade groups: a clinical validation study
SourceEuropean Radiology, 32, 4, (2022), pp. 2372-2383
Article / Letter to editor
Display more detailsDisplay less details
SubjectRadboudumc 15: Urological cancers RIHS: Radboud Institute for Health Sciences
OBJECTIVES: Multiparametric MRI with Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) assessment is sensitive but not specific for detecting clinically significant prostate cancer. This study validates the diagnostic accuracy of the recently suggested fractal dimension (FD) of perfusion for detecting clinically significant cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Routine clinical MR imaging data, acquired at 3 T without an endorectal coil including dynamic contrast-enhanced sequences, of 72 prostate cancer foci in 64 patients were analyzed. In-bore MRI-guided biopsy with International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grading served as reference standard. Previously established FD cutoffs for predicting tumor grade were compared to measurements of the apparent diffusion coefficient (25th percentile, ADC25) and PI-RADS assessment with and without inclusion of the FD as separate criterion. RESULTS: Fractal analysis allowed prediction of ISUP grade groups 1 to 4 but not 5, with high agreement to the reference standard (kappaFD = 0.88 [CI: 0.79-0.98]). Integrating fractal analysis into PI-RADS allowed a strong improvement in specificity and overall accuracy while maintaining high sensitivity for significant cancer detection (ISUP > 1; PI-RADS alone: sensitivity = 96%, specificity = 20%, area under the receiver operating curve [AUC] = 0.65; versus PI-RADS with fractal analysis: sensitivity = 95%, specificity = 88%, AUC = 0.92, p < 0.001). ADC25 only differentiated low-grade group 1 from pooled higher-grade groups 2-5 (kappaADC = 0.36 [CI: 0.12-0.59]). Importantly, fractal analysis was significantly more reliable than ADC25 in predicting non-significant and clinically significant cancer (AUCFD = 0.96 versus AUCADC = 0.75, p < 0.001). Diagnostic accuracy was not significantly affected by zone location. CONCLUSIONS: Fractal analysis is accurate in noninvasively predicting tumor grades in prostate cancer and adds independent information when implemented into PI-RADS assessment. This opens the opportunity to individually adjust biopsy priority and method in individual patients. KEY POINTS: * Fractal analysis of perfusion is accurate in noninvasively predicting tumor grades in prostate cancer using dynamic contrast-enhanced sequences (kappaFD = 0.88). * Including the fractal dimension into PI-RADS as a separate criterion improved specificity (from 20 to 88%) and overall accuracy (AUC from 0.86 to 0.96) while maintaining high sensitivity (96% versus 95%) for predicting clinically significant cancer. * Fractal analysis was significantly more reliable than ADC25 in predicting clinically significant cancer (AUCFD = 0.96 versus AUCADC = 0.75).
This item appears in the following Collection(s)
- Academic publications 
- Electronic publications 
- Faculty of Medical Sciences 
- Open Access publications 
Upload full text
Use your RU credentials (u/z-number and password) to log in with SURFconext to upload a file for processing by the repository team.