Apparent Diffusion Coefficient Values of Prostate Cancer: Comparison of 2D and 3D ROIs.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare the reproducibility and diagnostic performance of 2D and 3D ROIs for prostate apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) measurements.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study included 56 patients with prostate cancer undergoing 3-T MRI including DWI (b = 50 and 1000 s/mm) before radical prostatectomy. Histologic findings from prostatectomy specimens were reviewed to denote each patient's dominant tumor and a benign region with visually decreased ADC. Three readers independently measured the ADCs of both areas using an ROI placed on a single slice through the lesion (2D) and an ROI encompassing all slices through the lesion (3D). Readers repeated measurements after 3 weeks. Assessment included Bland-Altman analysis (coefficient of repeatability [CR] in which lower values indicated higher reliability) and ROC analysis.

RESULTS

For intrareader variability, the CRs across readers for all ROIs were 9.9% for 2D and 9.3% for 3D. For tumor ROIs the CRs were 10.6% for 2D and 9.6% for 3D. For interreader variability, the CRs across readers for all ROIs were 17.1% for 2D and 20.5% for 3D and for tumor ROIs were 17.9% for 2D and 22.2% for 3D. For combined reader data, the AUCs for benign and malignant findings were 0.77 for 2D and 0.78 for 3D (p = 0.146). For differentiating Gleason score (GS) 3 + 3 from GS > 3 + 3 tumors, the AUCs were 0.92 for 2D and 0.92 for 3D ROIs (p = 0.649). For differentiating GS ≤ 3 + 4 from GS ≥ 4 + 3 tumors, the AUCs were 0.70 for 2D and 0.67 for 3D ROIs (p = 0.004).

CONCLUSION

Use of a 3D ROI did not improve intrareader or interreader reproducibility or diagnostic performance compared with use of a 2D ROI for prostate ADC measurements. Interreader reproducibility of 2D ROIs was suboptimal nonetheless.