Baris Turkbey1, Haresh Mani2, Omer Aras1, Ardeshir R Rastinehad3, Vijay Shah4, Marcelino Bernardo5, Thomas Pohida6, Dagane Daar1, Compton Benjamin3, Yolanda L McKinney1, W Marston Linehan3, Bradford J Wood7, Maria J Merino2, Peter L Choyke1, Peter A Pinto8. 1. Molecular Imaging Program, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland. 2. Laboratory of Pathology, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland. 3. Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland. 4. VirtualScopics, Rochester, New York. 5. Molecular Imaging Program, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland; Imaging Physics, SAIC Frederick, Inc., NCI-Frederick, Frederick, Maryland. 6. Division of Computational Bioscience, Center for Information Technology and Center for Interventional Oncology, NCI and Radiology, Bethesda, Maryland. 7. Imaging Sciences, Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. 8. Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland; Imaging Sciences, Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. Electronic address: pintop@mail.nih.gov.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The biology of prostate cancer may be influenced by the index lesion. The definition of index lesion volume is important for appropriate decision making, especially for image guided focal treatment. We determined the accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging for determining index tumor volume compared with volumes derived from histopathology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We evaluated 135 patients (mean age 59.3 years) with a mean prostate specific antigen of 6.74 ng/dl who underwent multiparametric 3T endorectal coil magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate and subsequent radical prostatectomy. Index tumor volume was determined prospectively and independently by magnetic resonance imaging and histopathology. The ellipsoid formula was applied to determine histopathology tumor volume, whereas manual tumor segmentation was used to determine magnetic resonance tumor volume. Histopathology tumor volume was correlated with age and prostate specific antigen whereas magnetic resonance tumor volume involved Pearson correlation and linear regression methods. In addition, the predictive power of magnetic resonance tumor volume, prostate specific antigen and age for estimating histopathology tumor volume (greater than 0.5 cm(3)) was assessed by ROC analysis. The same analysis was also conducted for the 1.15 shrinkage factor corrected histopathology data set. RESULTS: There was a positive correlation between histopathology tumor volume and magnetic resonance tumor volume (Pearson coefficient 0.633, p <0.0001), but a weak correlation between prostate specific antigen and histopathology tumor volume (Pearson coefficient 0.237, p = 0.003). On linear regression analysis histopathology tumor volume and magnetic resonance tumor volume were correlated (r(2) = 0.401, p <0.00001). On ROC analysis AUC values for magnetic resonance tumor volume, prostate specific antigen and age in estimating tumors larger than 0.5 cm(3) at histopathology were 0.949 (p <0.0000001), 0.685 (p = 0.001) and 0.627 (p = 0.02), respectively. Similar results were found in the analysis with shrinkage factor corrected tumor volumes at histopathology. CONCLUSIONS: Magnetic resonance imaging can accurately estimate index tumor volume as determined by histology. Magnetic resonance imaging has better accuracy in predicting histopathology tumor volume in tumors larger than 0.5 cm(3) than prostate specific antigen and age. Index tumor volume as determined by magnetic resonance imaging may be helpful in planning treatment, specifically in identifying tumor margins for image guided focal therapy and possibly selecting better active surveillance candidates.
PURPOSE: The biology of prostate cancer may be influenced by the index lesion. The definition of index lesion volume is important for appropriate decision making, especially for image guided focal treatment. We determined the accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging for determining index tumor volume compared with volumes derived from histopathology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We evaluated 135 patients (mean age 59.3 years) with a mean prostate specific antigen of 6.74 ng/dl who underwent multiparametric 3T endorectal coil magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate and subsequent radical prostatectomy. Index tumor volume was determined prospectively and independently by magnetic resonance imaging and histopathology. The ellipsoid formula was applied to determine histopathology tumor volume, whereas manual tumor segmentation was used to determine magnetic resonance tumor volume. Histopathology tumor volume was correlated with age and prostate specific antigen whereas magnetic resonance tumor volume involved Pearson correlation and linear regression methods. In addition, the predictive power of magnetic resonance tumor volume, prostate specific antigen and age for estimating histopathology tumor volume (greater than 0.5 cm(3)) was assessed by ROC analysis. The same analysis was also conducted for the 1.15 shrinkage factor corrected histopathology data set. RESULTS: There was a positive correlation between histopathology tumor volume and magnetic resonance tumor volume (Pearson coefficient 0.633, p <0.0001), but a weak correlation between prostate specific antigen and histopathology tumor volume (Pearson coefficient 0.237, p = 0.003). On linear regression analysis histopathology tumor volume and magnetic resonance tumor volume were correlated (r(2) = 0.401, p <0.00001). On ROC analysis AUC values for magnetic resonance tumor volume, prostate specific antigen and age in estimating tumors larger than 0.5 cm(3) at histopathology were 0.949 (p <0.0000001), 0.685 (p = 0.001) and 0.627 (p = 0.02), respectively. Similar results were found in the analysis with shrinkage factor corrected tumor volumes at histopathology. CONCLUSIONS: Magnetic resonance imaging can accurately estimate index tumor volume as determined by histology. Magnetic resonance imaging has better accuracy in predicting histopathology tumor volume in tumors larger than 0.5 cm(3) than prostate specific antigen and age. Index tumor volume as determined by magnetic resonance imaging may be helpful in planning treatment, specifically in identifying tumor margins for image guided focal therapy and possibly selecting better active surveillance candidates.
Authors: Vijay Shah; Thomas Pohida; Baris Turkbey; Haresh Mani; Maria Merino; Peter A Pinto; Peter Choyke; Marcelino Bernardo Journal: Rev Sci Instrum Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 1.523
Authors: Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Jeffry Neil; Xiangtian Kong; Jonathan Melamed; James S Babb; Samir S Taneja; Bachir Taouli Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Iclal Ocak; Marcelino Bernardo; Greg Metzger; Tristan Barrett; Peter Pinto; Paul S Albert; Peter L Choyke Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Roberta Mazzucchelli; Marina Scarpelli; Liang Cheng; Antonio Lopez-Beltran; Andrea B Galosi; Ziya Kirkali; Rodolfo Montironi Journal: Anticancer Res Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 2.480
Authors: G J Jager; E T Ruijter; C A van de Kaa; J J de la Rosette; G O Oosterhof; J R Thornbury; J O Barentsz Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 1996-04 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Jonathan B Bloom; Graham R Hale; Samuel A Gold; Kareem N Rayn; Clayton Smith; Sherif Mehralivand; Marcin Czarniecki; Vladimir Valera; Bradford J Wood; Maria J Merino; Peter L Choyke; Howard L Parnes; Baris Turkbey; Peter A Pinto Journal: J Urol Date: 2019-01 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Andriy Fedorov; Jacob Fluckiger; Gregory D Ayers; Xia Li; Sandeep N Gupta; Clare Tempany; Robert Mulkern; Thomas E Yankeelov; Fiona M Fennessy Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2014-01-21 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: Julie Y An; Stephanie A Harmon; Sherif Mehralivand; Marcin Czarniecki; Clayton P Smith; Julie A Peretti; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto; Peter L Choyke; Joanna H Shih; Baris Turkbey Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2018-12
Authors: Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Barış Türkbey; Ardeshir R Rastinehad; Annerleim Walton-Diaz; Anthony N Hoang; M Minhaj Siddiqui; Lambros Stamatakis; Hong Truong; Jeffrey W Nix; Srinivas Vourganti; Kinzya B Grant; Maria J Merino; Peter L Choyke; Peter A Pinto Journal: Diagn Interv Radiol Date: 2014 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 2.630