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.

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

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

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

Can 3D Multiparametric Ultrasound Imaging Predict Prostate Biopsy Outcome?

Diffusion Kurtosis Imaging Combined with DWI at 3-T MRI for Detection and Assessment of Aggressiveness of Prostate Cancer.

Non-Gaussian Water Diffusion Kurtosis Imaging of Prostate Cancer.

Quantitative Analysis of Multiparametric Prostate Mr Images: Differentiation Between Prostate Cancer and Normal Tissue and Correlation with Gleason Score-A Computer-Aided Diagnosis Development Study

Comparative Study of Monoexponential, Intravoxel Incoherent Motion, Kurtosis, and IVIM-Kurtosis Models for the Diagnosis and Aggressiveness Assessment of Prostate Cancer

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

Diffusion Kurtosis Imaging Helps to Predict Upgrading in Biopsy-Proven Prostate Cancer with a Gleason Score of 6.

The preliminary study of diffusion kurtosis imaging in prostate cancer

Preoperative Evaluation of Prostate Cancer Aggressiveness: Using ADC and ADC Ratio in Determining Gleason Score

Intravoxel incoherent motion and diffusion kurtosis imaging and their machine‐learning‐based texture analysis for detection and assessment of prostate cancer severity at 3 T

A radiomics based method for prediction of prostate cancer Gleason score using enlarged region of interest

Histogram Analysis of Diffusion Kurtosis Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Differentiation of Pathologic Gleason Grade of Prostate Cancer

Combining Magnetic Resonance Diffusion-Weighted Imaging with Prostate-Specific Antigen to Differentiate Between Malignant and Benign Prostate Lesions.

The Value of Histogram Quantitative Analysis Based on Diffusion Kurtosis Imaging in Detecting Prostate Cancer and Assessing Tumor Aggressiveness

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

Differentiation of Prostate Cancer Lesions in the Transition Zone by Diffusion-Weighted MRI

Diffusion-weighted and Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced MRI of Prostate Cancer: Correlation of Quantitative MR Parameters with Gleason Score and Tumor Angiogenesis.

Prostate Cancer: Feasibility and Preliminary Experience of a Diffusional Kurtosis Model for Detection and Assessment of Aggressiveness of Peripheral Zone Cancer