Amide Proton Transfer Could Provide More Accurate Lesion Characterization in the Transition Zone of the Prostate

Background There is an overlap comparing transition zone prostate cancer (TZ PCa) and benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) on T2‐weighted imaging (T2WI) and diffusion‐weighted imaging (DWI), creating additional challenges for assessment of TZ tumors on MRI. Purpose To evaluate whether amide proton transfer‐weighted (APTw) imaging provides new diagnostic ideas for TZ PCa. Study type Prospective. Population A total of 51 TZ PCa patients (age, 49–89), 44 stromal BPH (age, 57–92), and 45 glandular BPH patients (age, 56–92). Field Strength/Sequence A 3 T; T2WI turbo spin echo (TSE), quantitative T2*‐weighted imaging, DWI echo planar imaging, 3D APTw TSE. Assessment Differences in APTw, apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), and T2* among three lesions were compared by one‐way analysis of variance (ANOVA). Regions of interest were drawn by two radiologists (X.Q.Z. and X.Y.Q., with 21 and 15 years of experience, respectively). Statistical Tests Multivariable logistic regression analyses; ANOVA with post hoc testing; receiver operator characteristic curve analysis; Delong test. Significance level: P < 0.05. Results APTw among TZ PCa, stromal BPH, and glandular BPH (3.48% ± 0.83% vs. 2.76% ± 0.49% vs. 2.72% ± 0.45%, respectively) were significantly different except between stromal BPH and glandular BPH ( P > 0.99). Significant differences were found in ADC (TZ PCa 0.76 ± 0.16 × 10 −3 mm 2 /sec vs. stromal BPH 0.91 ± 0.14 × 10 −3 mm 2 /sec vs. glandular BPH 1.08 ± 0.18 × 10 −3 mm 2 /sec) among three lesions. APTw (OR = 12.18, 11.80, respectively) and 1/ADC (OR = 703.87, 181.11, respectively) were independent predictors of TZ PCa from BPH and stromal BPH. The combination of APTw and ADC had better diagnostic performance in the identification of TZ PCa from BPH and stromal BPH. Data Conclusion APTw imaging has the potential to be of added value to ADC in differentiating TZ PCa from BPH and stromal BPH. Evidence Level 2 Technical Efficacy Stage 2