Abstract:Objective To evaluate the diagnostic value of intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) and diffusion kurtosis imaging (DKI) parameters in diagnosing prostate cancer(PCa) in transition zone (TZ) and stratifying pathologic Gleason grade of prostate cancer. Methods A total of 55 patients who were undergoing preoperative muti?parameters MRI of T2WI, DWI, IVIM and DKI model for the exploration of prostate cancer (January 2015 to June 2017) with pathologically confirmed by MRI?transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) targeted fusion biopsy were retrospectively included. Parameters were postprocessed by IVIM models including quantitation of perfusion fraction (f), diffusivity (D) and pseudo?diffusivity (D*) and DKI models including the mean diffusivity (MD), mean kurtosis (MK) and fractional anisotropy (FA) by outlining the 3D VOI. Independent sample t?test was used to compare the differences in lesion parameters between prostate cancer and BPH, low?risk (BPH+Gleason score 6 points) and medium?high?risk lesions (Gleason score ≥7 points). Correlation between ADC values, IVIM and DKI parameters and Gleason scores were assessed with Spearman analysis.Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was used to evaluate the efficacy of various parameters in the differential diagnosis of prostate cancer and BPH with low?risk or high?risk. Results 27 (36 focus) cases of PCa and 28 (40 focus) cases of benign prostatic hyperplasia(BPH) in PZ were included, meanwhile, the cases of GS≥7 and and BPH+(GS=6) were 33,43,respectively. There were significant differences in ADC, D, MD, MK, and FA between patients in PCa?BHP group and high?low risk group in TZ (P<0.05), D*and f had no significant differences (P>0.05). ADC and MD showed relatively higher negativity correlations (r were－0.585 and－0.489, P<0.05) with GS of PCa in TZ. ADC exhibited a higher area under the curve (AUC 0.864) compared with D with area under the curve (AUC 0.853), however, the difference is not significant (P>0.05). Of model DKI in diagnose of PCa and BPH, the highest classification accuracy was MD(AUC 0.796). The AUC derived from multiple model parameters in different combination of ADC+D value, ADC+MD value, and ADC+MD+D value were 0.892, 0.884, and 0.897, respectively. ADC and D of IVIM model showed a significance difference between GS≥7 and BPH+(GS=6) with a higher AUC of 0.826 and 0.743. The AUC was 0.851 of the combination of mean ADC and D, 0.846 of combination of mean ADC and MD, the AUC (0.856) of the combination of ADC, D and MD significant higher than any two combined parameters (P>0.05). Conclusions IVIM and DKI models may help to discriminate prostate cancer from BPH, and predict mid?higher GS PCa in TZ. But there is no significant advantage compared with ADC values. It is feasible to stratify the pathological grade of prostate cancer in TZ by mean ADC and MD.

IVIM Parameters on MRI Could Predict ISUP Risk Groups of Prostate Cancers on Radical Prostatectomy

Differentiating between malignant and benign renal tumors: do IVIM and diffusion kurtosis imaging perform better than DWI?

Quantitative Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Parameters Could Predict International Society of Urological Pathology Risk Groups of Prostate Cancers on Radical Prostatectomy.

Prostate cancer aggressive prediction: preponderant diagnostic performances of intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) imaging and diffusion kurtosis imaging (DKI) beyond ADC at 3.0 T scanner with gleason score at final pathology

Predicting Preoperative Pathologic Grades of Bladder Cancer Using Intravoxel Incoherent Motion and Amide Proton Transfer-Weighted Imaging

Using IVIM Parameters to Differentiate Prostate Cancer and Contralateral Normal Tissue through Fusion of MRI Images with Whole-Mount Pathology Specimen Images by Control Point Registration Method

The comparative study of in transition zone prostate cancer: diagnostic performance of new intravoxel incoherent motion and diffusion kurtosis imaging models

IVIM-DWI in prostate cancer and the correlation with MVD

IVIM Improves Preoperative Assessment of Microvascular Invasion in HCC.

A Pilot Study on Correlations Between Preoperative Intravoxel Incoherent Motion MR Imaging and Postoperative Histopathological Features of Rectal Cancers

Comparative Study of Conventional Diffusion- Weighted Imaging and Introvoxel Incoherent Motion in Assessment of Pathological Grade of Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma

The Histogram Analysis of Intravoxel Incoherent Motion-Kurtosis Model in the Diagnosis and Grading of Prostate Cancer—A Preliminary Study

Comparative Study of Diagnostic Value Between IVIM and DWI for Prostate Cancer at 3.0 T Magnetic Resonance

Evaluation Parameters Between Intra-Voxel Incoherent Motion and Diffusion-Weighted Imaging in Grading and Differentiating Histological Subtypes of Meningioma: A Prospective Pilot Study.

Preoperative detection of lymphovascular invasion in rectal cancer using intravoxel incoherent motion imaging based on radiomics

Intravoxel Incoherent Motion MRI for the Differentiation of Benign, Intermediate, and Malignant Solid Soft‐tissue Tumors

Value of introvoxel incoherent motion model in assessment of differentiation and blood supply of cervical cancer

Value of intravoxel incoherent motion in assessment of pathological grade of clear cell renal cell carcinoma

Intravoxel incoherent motion and enhanced T2*-weighted angiography for preoperative prediction of microvascular invasion in hepatocellular carcinoma

Tumor suspicion on MRI incorporating T 2 and Diffusion-weighted imaging predicts adverse pathology on radical prostatectomy

Can intravoxel incoherent motion ( IVIM ) Replace the Conventional DWI Combined with DCE in Clinical Detection of Prostate Cancer ?