PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
July 22, 20240 citations

Apparent Diffusion Coefficient as a Prognostic Indicator in Definitive Radiotherapy for Gleason Score 7 Prostate Cancer: A Retrospective Analysis

View Full Paper
CÖCem ÖnalAEAyşenur ElmalıGEGürcan Erbay

Key Points

Key points are not available for this paper at this time.

Abstract

Abstract Objective To investigate the utility of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DW-MRI) in evaluating Gleason score (GS) 7 tumors before definitive radiotherapy (RT) and to explore its association with clinicopathological factors and treatment outcomes. Methods Clinical data of 266 prostate cancer (PCa) patients with biopsy-confirmed GS 7 who underwent RT were retrospectively analyzed. Pre-treatment DW-MRI was utilized to measure apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values of primary tumors. Treatment outcomes, including biochemical disease-free survival (bDFS) and prostate cancer-specific survival (PCSS), were assessed. Statistical analyses were conducted to determine the correlation between tumor ADC values, clinicopathological factors, and treatment outcomes. Results Tumors with a GS of 3 + 4 had significantly higher ADC values than those with a GS of 4 + 3 (0.746 ± 0.150 vs. 0.702 ± 0.157 × 10˗³ mm²/sec; p ˗³ mm²/sec was identified for predicting disease progression. Patients with higher ADC values exhibited significantly better 7-year bDFS rates (92.8% vs. 83.2%; p = 0.02). However, GS 4 + 3 tumors independently predicted poorer bDFS and PCSS outcomes. In the multivariable analysis, only GS 4 + 3 tumor was predictive for worse bDFS and PCSS. Conclusions Tumor ADC values are a reliable biomarker for differentiating between GS 3 + 4 and 4 + 3 tumors in the GS 7 category. Tumors exhibiting lower ADC values have been associated to higher risk factors and an increased likelihood of disease progression, particularly in GS 3 + 4 tumors where GS upgrading could happen.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Önal et al. (2024) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/68e5f92eb6db64358758cea5https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4648900/v1
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1The Evaluation of the Relationship Between ADC Values and Gleason Score in the Prostate Cancer2023 · 1 citations
  2. 2Correlation of MRI-Derived Apparent Diffusion Coefficient (ADC) Values With Gleason Scores in Prostate Cancer and Quantitative Prostate MRI Reading2026 · 1 citations
  3. 3Possible Role of Diffusion-Weighted Imaging in Prediction of Prostate Cancer Grade Group Upgrading: Insights from Biopsy to Radical Prostatectomy2026
  4. 4Integrating Apparent Diffusion Coefficient and Prostate-Specific Antigen as Prognostic Factors of Treatment Response to Androgen Deprivation Therapy and Radiotherapy in Prostate Cancer2025
  5. 5Apparent diffusion coefficient values in prostate cancer: Association with pathological grade groups and correlation with Ki-67 proliferation index2026