Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 295

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 11 of the 11 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Prostate Cancer Aggressiveness: Assessment with Whole-Lesion Histogram Analysis of the Apparent Diffusion Coefficient

Donati, Olivio F., Mazaheri, Yousef, Afaq, Asim, Vargas, Hebert A., Zheng, Junting, Moskowitz, Chaya S., Hricak, Hedvig, Akin, Oguz·2014·Radiology

Abstract

PURPOSE: To evaluate the relationship between prostate cancer aggressiveness and histogram-derived apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) parameters obtained from whole-lesion assessment of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance (MR) imaging of the prostate and to determine which ADC metric may help best differentiate low-grade from intermediate- or high-grade prostate cancer lesions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The institutional review board approved this retrospective HIPAA-compliant study of 131 men (median age, 60 years) who underwent diffusion-weighted MR imaging before prostatectomy for prostate cancer. Clinically significant tumors (tumor volume > 0.5 mL) were identified at whole-mount step-section histopathologic examination, and Gleason scores of the tumors were recorded. A volume of interest was drawn around each significant tumor on ADC maps. The mean, median, and 10th and 25th percentile ADCs were determined from the whole-lesion histogram and correlated with the Gleason score by using the Spearman correlation coefficient (ρ). The ability of each parameter to help differentiate tumors with a Gleason score of 6 from those with a Gleason score of at least 7 was assessed by using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (Az). RESULTS: In total, 116 clinically significant lesions (89 in the peripheral zone, 27 in the transition zone) were identified in 85 of the 131 patients (65%). Forty-six patients did not have a clinically significant lesion. For mean ADC, median ADC, 10th percentile ADC, and 25th percentile ADC, the Spearman ρ values for correlation with Gleason score were -0.31, -0.30, -0.36, and -0.35, respectively, whereas the Az values for differentiating lesions with a Gleason score of 6 from those with a Gleason score of at least 7 were 0.704, 0.692, 0.758, and 0.723, respectively. The Az of 10th percentile ADC was significantly higher than that of the mean ADC for all lesions and peripheral zone lesions (P = .0001). CONCLUSION: When whole-lesion histograms were used to derive ADC parameters, 10th percentile ADC correlated with Gleason score better than did other ADC parameters, suggesting that 10th percentile ADC may prove to be optimal for differentiating low-grade from intermediate- or high-grade prostate cancer with diffusion-weighted MR imaging.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1148/radiol.13130973

Cites

11 of 11 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 11 references

Cited by

See all 295

Metadata

Authors
Donati, O. F., Mazaheri, Y., Afaq, A., Vargas, H. A., Zheng, J., Moskowitz, C. S., Hricak, H., & Akin, O.
Venue
Radiology
Published
2014-04
Volume
271
Issue
1
Pages
143-152
ISSN
  • 0033-8419 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-1315
OpenAlex
W2121642414
Cited by
295
References
11
FWCI
27.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Prostate Cancer Aggressiveness: Assessment with Whole-Lesion Histogram Analysis of the Apparent Diffusion Coefficient. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1148/radiol.13130973
The paper
Donati, O. F., Mazaheri, Y., Afaq, A., Vargas, H. A., Zheng, J., Moskowitz, C. S., Hricak, H., & Akin, O. (2014). Prostate Cancer Aggressiveness: Assessment with Whole-Lesion Histogram Analysis of the Apparent Diffusion Coefficient. Radiology. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.13130973

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.