title: Dynamic Contrast-enhanced MR Imaging Curve-type Analysis: Is It Helpful in the Differentiation of Prostate Cancer from Healthy Peripheral Zone?
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To evaluate the performance and interobserver agreement of qualitative dynamic contrast material enhanced magnetic resonance (MR) imaging curve analysis as described in the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) for the differentiation of prostate cancer (PCa) from healthy prostatic tissue in the peripheral zone (PZ).
  
  
  METHODS
  This Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant institutional review board-approved retrospective analysis included 120 consecutive pretreatment dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MR imaging PCa examinations. Regions of interest (ROIs) were placed in 251 spots, including 95 (37.8%) in healthy PZ tissue and 156 (62.2%) in PCa, by using detailed histologic-multiparametric MR correlation review. Three radiologists reviewed the DCE time curves and assessed qualitative curve types as described in PI-RADS: type 1 (progressive), type 2 (plateau), or type 3 (washout). Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was used to assess accuracy in differentiating PCa from healthy tissue on the basis of curve type, and κ was calculated to assess interobserver agreement.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Receiver operating characteristic curves were similar for all observers, but mean areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve were poor (0.58 ± 0.04 [standard deviation] to 0.63 ± 0.04). No differences in accuracy were seen for varying DCE time resolution and imaging length. Observer agreement in assessment of type 3 versus types 1 or 2 curves was substantial (0.66 < κ < 0.79), better for PCa ROIs than for healthy-tissue ROIs. The agreement between type 1 and type 2 curves was moderate to substantial (0.49 < κ < 0.78).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Qualitative DCE MR imaging time-curve-type analysis performs poorly for differentiation of PCa from healthy prostatic tissue. Interobserver agreement is excellent in assessment of type 3 curves but only moderate for type 1 and 2 curves.
authors.affiliation: From the Departments of Radiology (B.G.H., Y.J., M.W.V., S.T., S.M., A.O.) and Pathology (T.A.), University of Chicago Medical Center, 5841 S Maryland Ave, MC 526, Chicago, IL 60637; and School of Electronic and Information Engineering, Beijing Jiaotong University, Beijing, China (Y.P.).
authors.forename: Barry G
authors.initials: BG
authors.lastname: Hansford
authors.forename: Yahui
authors.initials: Y
authors.lastname: Peng
authors.forename: Yulei
authors.initials: Y
authors.lastname: Jiang
authors.forename: Michael W
authors.initials: MW
authors.lastname: Vannier
authors.forename: Tatjana
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Antic
authors.forename: Stephen
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Thomas
authors.forename: Stephanie
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: McCann
authors.forename: Aytekin
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Oto
mesh_terms: D003287:Contrast Media; D003937:Diagnosis, Differential; D006801:Humans; D008279:Magnetic Resonance Imaging / Q000379:methods / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D015588:Observer Variation; D011467:Prostate / Q000033:anatomy & histology*; D011471:Prostatic Neoplasms / Q000473:pathology*; D012189:Retrospective Studies
chemical_list: D003287:Contrast Media