{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03942115768463074, 'fraction_numerical': 0.008982035928143712, 'mean_word_length': 5.265625, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 3, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Evaluation of Dispersion MRI for Improved Prostate Cancer Diagnosis in a Multicenter Study.

OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this study is to compare dispersion MRI and Tofts model (TM) for analysis of quantitative dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MRI (DCE-MRI) for localization of prostate cancer and to assess the correlation between quantitative DCE-MRI parameters and tumor grade.


MATERIALS AND METHODS
This retrospective multicenter study included 80 patients with biopsy-proven prostate cancer who underwent DCE-MRI followed by radical prostatectomy. DCE-MRI parameters were extracted from dispersion MRI analysis (the dispersion parameter [kd], the flux rate [kep], and the intravascular mean transit time) and TM analysis (the forward volume transfer constant [Ktrans], kep, and the extravascular extracellular volume fraction [ve]). ROIs representing benign and malignant tissue were drawn on each DCE-MRI slice according to the histopathologic findings, and the diagnostic performance of the estimated parameters for the diagnosis of prostate cancer was evaluated using fivefold cross-validation and ROC curve analysis. Further analysis was conducted for the two most relevant parameters (i.e., kd [for dispersion MRI] and kep [for TM]), to investigate the correlation between DCE-MRI parameters and tumor grade.


RESULTS
DCE-MRI parameters were significantly different between benign and malignant prostate tissue (p < 0.0001). The dispersion MRI parameter kd outperformed all other DCE-MRI parameters for prostate cancer diagnosis, showing the highest area under the ROC curve value (p < 0.0001). Only a weak linear correlation (Pearson r = 0.18; p < 0.05) was found between the dispersion parameter and the Gleason grade group.


CONCLUSION
Dispersion MRI outperformed TM analysis, improving the diagnostic performance of quantitative DCE-MRI for prostate cancer localization. Of the DCE-MRI parameters, kd (for dispersion MRI) and kep (for TM) provided only poor characterization of tumor grade.