INTRODUCTION: A study was performed to validate magnetic resonance (MR) based prostate tumor delineations with pathology. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Five patients with biopsy proven prostate cancer underwent a T2 weighted (T2w), diffusion weighted MRI (DW-MRI) and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI) scan before prostatectomy. Suspicious regions were delineated based on all available MR information. After prostatectomy whole-mount hematoxylin-eosin stained (H&E) sections were made. Tumor tissue was delineated on the H&E stained sections and compared with the MR based delineations. The registration accuracy between the MR images and H&E stained sections was estimated. RESULTS: A tumor coverage of 44-89% was reached by the MR based tumor delineations. The application of a margin of approximately 5mm to the MR based tumor delineations yielded a tumor coverage of 85-100% in all patients. Errors created during the registration procedure were 2-3mm, which cannot completely explain the limited tumor coverage. CONCLUSIONS: An accurate tissue processing and registration method was presented (registration error 2-3mm), which enables the validation of MR based tumor delineations with pathology. Reasonable tumor coverage of about 85% and larger was found when applying a margin of approximately 5 mm to the MR based tumor delineations. Copyright 2010 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
INTRODUCTION: A study was performed to validate magnetic resonance (MR) based prostate tumor delineations with pathology. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Five patients with biopsy proven prostate cancer underwent a T2 weighted (T2w), diffusion weighted MRI (DW-MRI) and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI) scan before prostatectomy. Suspicious regions were delineated based on all available MR information. After prostatectomy whole-mount hematoxylin-eosin stained (H&E) sections were made. Tumor tissue was delineated on the H&E stained sections and compared with the MR based delineations. The registration accuracy between the MR images and H&E stained sections was estimated. RESULTS: A tumor coverage of 44-89% was reached by the MR based tumor delineations. The application of a margin of approximately 5mm to the MR based tumor delineations yielded a tumor coverage of 85-100% in all patients. Errors created during the registration procedure were 2-3mm, which cannot completely explain the limited tumor coverage. CONCLUSIONS: An accurate tissue processing and registration method was presented (registration error 2-3mm), which enables the validation of MR based tumor delineations with pathology. Reasonable tumor coverage of about 85% and larger was found when applying a margin of approximately 5 mm to the MR based tumor delineations. Copyright 2010 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
Authors: Alan Priester; Shyam Natarajan; Pooria Khoshnoodi; Daniel J Margolis; Steven S Raman; Robert E Reiter; Jiaoti Huang; Warren Grundfest; Leonard S Marks Journal: J Urol Date: 2016-07-30 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Mekhail Anwar; Antonio C Westphalen; Adam J Jung; Susan M Noworolski; Jeffry P Simko; John Kurhanewicz; Mack Roach; Peter R Carroll; Fergus V Coakley Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2014-01-17 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Eli Gibson; Mena Gaed; José A Gómez; Madeleine Moussa; Stephen Pautler; Joseph L Chin; Cathie Crukley; Glenn S Bauman; Aaron Fenster; Aaron D Ward Journal: J Pathol Inform Date: 2013-10-31
Authors: Peter de Boer; Maaike C G Bleeker; Anje M Spijkerboer; Agustinus J A J van de Schoot; Shandra Bipat; Marrije R Buist; Coen R N Rasch; Jaap Stoker; Lukas J A Stalpers Journal: Eur J Radiol Open Date: 2015-07-26