Apparent Diffusion Coefficient Values of Prostate Cancer: Comparison of 2D and 3D ROIs
Tsutomu TamadaChenchan HuangJustin ReamMyles T. TaffelSamir S. TanejaAndrew B. Rosenkrantz
Abstract
Use of a 3D ROI did not improve intrareader or interreader reproducibility or diagnostic performance compared with use of a 2D ROI for prostate ADC measurements. Interreader reproducibility of 2D ROIs was suboptimal nonetheless.
Metrics
Citation History
Topics
Related Documents
Apparent Diffusion Coefficient for Prostate Cancer Imaging: Impact of b Values
Yahui PengYulei JiangTatjana AnticIla SethiChristine Schmid‐TannwaldScott E. EggenerAytekin Oto
Diffusion‐weighted imaging of prostate cancer: Correlation between apparent diffusion coefficient values and tumor proliferation
Xi Zhen WangBin WangZhi Qin GaoJin Gang LiuZuo Qin LiuQing NiuZhen SunYu Xiao Yuan
Apparent Diffusion Coefficient Values of the Benign Central Zone of the Prostate: Comparison With Low- and High-Grade Prostate Cancer
Rajan T. GuptaChristopher R. KauffmanKirema Garcia-ReyesMark L. PalmeriJohn F. MaddenThomas J. PolascikAndrew B. Rosenkrantz
Comparison of apparent diffusion coefficient and relative apparent diffusion coefficient values for differential diagnosis of breast lesions
Determination of the cutoff level of apparent diffusion coefficient values for detection of prostate cancer
Masako NagayamaYuji WatanabeAkito TeraiTohru ArakiKenji NotoharaA. OkumuraYoshiki AmohTakayoshi IshimoriSatoru NakashitaYoshihiro Dodo