4.4 Article

Biexponential apparent diffusion coefficients in prostate cancer

Journal

MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING
Volume 27, Issue 3, Pages 355-359

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.mri.2008.07.008

Keywords

MRI; Diffusion; Prostate cancer; Biexponential decay

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to investigate the need for biexponential signal decay modeling for prostate cancer diffusion signal decays with b-factor over an extended b-factor range. Materials and Methods: Ten healthy volunteers and 12 patients with a bulky prostate cancer underwent line scan diffusion-weighted MR imaging in which b-factors from 0 to 3000 s/mm(2) in 16 steps were sampled. The acquired signal decay curves were fit with both monoexponential and biexponential signal decay functions and a statistical comparison between the two fits was performed. Results: The biexponential model provided a statistically better fit over the monoexponential model on the peripheral zone (PZ), transitional zone (TZ) and prostate cancer. The fast and slow apparent diffusion coefficients (ADCs) in the PZ, TZ and cancer were 2.9 +/- 0.2, 0.7 +/- 0.2x10(-3) mm(2)/ms (PZ); 2.9 +/- 0.4, 0.7 +/- 0.2x10(-3) mm(2)/ms (TZ); and 1.7 +/- 0.4, 0.3 +/- 0.1x10(-3) mm(2)/ms (cancer), respectively. The apparent fractions of the fast diffusion component in the PZ, TZ and cancer were 70 +/- 10%, 60 +/- 10% and 50 +/- 10%, respectively. The fast and slow ADCs of cancer were significantly lower than those of TZ and PZ, and the apparent fraction of the fast diffusion component was significantly smaller in cancer than in PZ. Conclusions: Biexponential diffusion decay functions are required for prostate cancer diffusion signal decay curves when sampled over an extended b-factor range, providing additional, unique tissue characterization parameters for prostate cancer. (C) 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available