The value of the magnetic resonance apparent diffusion coefficient in predicting Gleason grouping upgrading after radical prostatectomy

Background: This study aims to evaluate the predictive value of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) measurements in identifying cases where Gleason grade grouping is upgraded following radical prostatectomy (RP). Accurate preoperative assessment of prostate cancer (PCa) aggressiveness remains a critical challenge, particularly in anticipating discrepancies between biopsy-based and post-surgical Gleason grading. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on clinical and MRI data from 135 patients with PCa who underwent both biopsy and RP. Patients were categorized into two groups based on whether their Gleason grade group was upgraded postoperatively. Variables showing significant differences between the Gleason grade upgrade (GGU) and non-Gleason group upgrade (non-GGU) groups were included in a multivariable logistic regression analysis to identify independent predictors of GGU following laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were generated for each independent predictor to evaluate their diagnostic performance in detecting GGU. Clinical decision curve analysis was performed to assess the clinical net benefit of ADC value, body mass index (BMI) and percentage of positive needles. Results: The univariate analysis indicated statistically significant differences among groups in terms of BMI, ADC, prostate imaging and data reporting system (PI-RADS) v2.1 and so on (p < 0.05). Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed BMI, percentage of positive needles, and ADC as independent risk factors for GGU in PCa (p < 0.05). ROC curve analysis showed that the best threshold for predicting GGU in PCa was ADC ≥0.75 × 10−3 mm2/s. The clinical decision curve analysis demonstrated that the ADC value, BMI, and the percentage of positive biopsy cores provided greater net clinical benefits in predicting GGU. Conclusions: Based on the 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grading criteria, this study found that ADC value, BMI and percentage of positive biopsy cores demonstrated the strongest diagnostic performance in predicting GGU in PCa.

Prostate cancer; Apparent diffusion coefficient; Gleason group; Body mass index

[1] Bray F, Laversanne M, Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Soerjomataram I, et al. Global cancer statistics 2022: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians. 2024; 74: 229–263.

[2] Egevad L, Micoli C, Delahunt B, Samaratunga H, Garmo H, Stattin P, et al. Gleason scores provide more accurate prognostic information than grade groups. Pathology. 2025; 57: 293–296.

[3] Jadvar H, Chen K, Mohamed P, Jadvar DS, Abreu AL. Cellular proliferation imaging with 18 F-FMAU PET/CT as adjunct to mpMRI in image-guided biopsy of suspected prostate cancer. Clinical Nuclear Medicine. 2025; 50: e340–e343.

[4] Korpás KL, Beke L, Varga D, Bidiga L, Méhes G, Molnár S. Grade group accuracy is improved by extensive prostate biopsy sampling, but unrelated to prostatectomy specimen sampling or use of immunohistochemistry. Pathology and Oncology Research. 2023; 29: 1611157.

[5] Trecarten S, Sunnapwar AG, Clarke GD, Liss MA. Prostate MRI for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer: update and future directions. Advances in Cancer Research. 2024; 161: 71–118.

[6] Feng X, Chen X, Zhou H, Hong Y, Zhu CX, Lu LB, et al. Diagnostic value of multi-parameter MRI-based PI-RADS v2.1 for clinically significant prostate cancer. Chinese Journal of Radiology. 2023; 57: 1193–1199. (In Chinese)

[7] Hrubá T, Kubas V, Franko M, Baláž V, Spurný M, Mištinová JP. Precision in prostate cancer detection: integrating prostate-specific antigen density (PSAD) and the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) to provide additional risk stratification for a more accurate diagnostic decision. Irish Journal of Medical Science. 2024; 193: 2635–2642.

[8] Boschheidgen M, Schimmöller L, Radtke JP, Kastl R, Jannusch K, Lakes J, et al. MRI characteristics predict risk of pathological upgrade in patients with ISUP grade group 1 prostate cancer. European Radiology. 2025; 35: 2170–2179.

[9] Epstein JI, Amin MB, Reuter VE, Humphrey PA. Contemporary Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: an update with discussion on practical issues to implement the 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma. The American Journal of Surgical Pathology. 2017; 41: e1–e7.

[10] Liu A, Huang H, Zhang CJ, Huang JY, Xu Y, Huang D, et al. Nomogram for predicting Gleason grouping upgrading(GGU)in a cohort receiving radical prostatectomy based on 2014 ISUP grouping system: development and internal validation. Chinese Journal of Urology. 2020; 41: 297–302. (In Chinese)

[11] Maurice MJ, Sundi D, Schaeffer EM, Abouassaly R. Risk of pathological upgrading and up staging among men with low risk prostate cancer varies by race: results from the national cancer database. Journal of Urology. 2017; 197: 627–631.

[12] Scialpi M, Martorana E, Scialpi P, Scalera GB, Belatti E, Aisa MC, et al. S-PI-RADS and PI-RRADS for Biparametric MRI in the detection of prostate cancer and post-treatment local recurrence. Anticancer Research. 2023; 43: 297–303.

[13] Tamada T, Ueda Y, Ueno Y, Kojima Y, Kido A, Yamamoto A. Diffusion-weighted imaging in prostate cancer. MAGMA. 2022; 35: 533–547.

[14] Yuan J, Poon DMC, Lo G, Wong OL, Cheung KY, Yu SK. A narrative review of MRI acquisition for MR-guided-radiotherapy in prostate cancer. Quantitative Imaging in Medicine and Surgery. 2022; 12: 1585–1607.

[15] Abreu-Gomez J, Walker D, Alotaibi T, McInnes MDF, Flood TA, Schieda N. Effect of observation size and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) value in PI-RADS v2.1 assessment category 4 and 5 observations compared to adverse pathological outcomes. European Radiology. 2020; 30: 4251–4261.

[16] Li P, Li Y, Xu J, Jing L. Differential diagnosis of high-risk prostate cancer in transitional zone by apparent diffusion coefficient of magnetic resonance and its correlation with pathological grading. Magnetic Resonance Imaging. 2024; 15: 77–82, 89. (In Chinese)

[17] Wu X, Reinikainen P, Vanhanen A, Kapanen M, Vierikko T, Ryymin P, et al. Correlation between apparent diffusion coefficient value on diffusion-weighted MR imaging and Gleason score in prostate cancer. Diagnostic and Interventional Imaging. 2017; 98: 63–71.

[18] Patel HD, Koehne EL, Shea SM, Fang AM, Gorbonos A, Quek ML, et al. Systematic versus targeted magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy among men with visible lesions. Journal of Urology. 2022; 207: 108–117.

[19] Alchin DR, Murphy D, Lawrentschuk N. Risk factors for Gleason Score upgrading following radical prostatectomy. Minerva Urology and Nephrology. 2017; 69: 459–465.