OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to compare calculated prostate volumes derived from tridimensional MR measurements (ellipsoid formula), manual segmentation, and a fully automated segmentation system as validated by actual prostatectomy specimens. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ninety-eight consecutive patients (median age, 60.6 years; median prostate-specific antigen [PSA] value, 6.85 ng/mL) underwent triplane T2-weighted MRI on a 3-T magnet with an endorectal coil while undergoing diagnostic workup for prostate cancer. Prostate volume estimates were determined using the formula for ellipsoid volume based on tridimensional measurements, manual segmentation of triplane MRI, and automated segmentation based on normalized gradient fields cross-correlation and graph-search refinement. Estimates of prostate volume based on ellipsoid volume, manual segmentation, and automated segmentation were compared with prostatectomy specimen volumes. Prostate volume estimates were compared using the Pearson correlation coefficient and linear regression analysis. The Dice similarity coefficient was used to quantify spatial agreement between manual segmentation and automated segmentation. RESULTS: The Pearson correlation coefficient revealed strong positive correlation between prostatectomy specimen volume and prostate volume estimates derived from manual segmentation (R = 0.89-0.91, p < 0.0001) and automated segmentation (R = 0.88-0.91, p < 0.0001). No difference was observed between manual segmentation and automated segmentation. Mean partial and full Dice similarity coefficients of 0.92 and 0.89, respectively, were achieved for axial automated segmentation. CONCLUSION: Prostate volume estimates obtained with a fully automated 3D segmentation tool based on normalized gradient fields cross-correlation and graph-search refinement can yield highly accurate prostate volume estimates in a clinically relevant time of 10 seconds. This tool will assist in developing a broad range of applications including routine prostate volume estimations, image registration, biopsy guidance, and decision support systems.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to compare calculated prostate volumes derived from tridimensional MR measurements (ellipsoid formula), manual segmentation, and a fully automated segmentation system as validated by actual prostatectomy specimens. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ninety-eight consecutive patients (median age, 60.6 years; median prostate-specific antigen [PSA] value, 6.85 ng/mL) underwent triplane T2-weighted MRI on a 3-T magnet with an endorectal coil while undergoing diagnostic workup for prostate cancer. Prostate volume estimates were determined using the formula for ellipsoid volume based on tridimensional measurements, manual segmentation of triplane MRI, and automated segmentation based on normalized gradient fields cross-correlation and graph-search refinement. Estimates of prostate volume based on ellipsoid volume, manual segmentation, and automated segmentation were compared with prostatectomy specimen volumes. Prostate volume estimates were compared using the Pearson correlation coefficient and linear regression analysis. The Dice similarity coefficient was used to quantify spatial agreement between manual segmentation and automated segmentation. RESULTS: The Pearson correlation coefficient revealed strong positive correlation between prostatectomy specimen volume and prostate volume estimates derived from manual segmentation (R = 0.89-0.91, p < 0.0001) and automated segmentation (R = 0.88-0.91, p < 0.0001). No difference was observed between manual segmentation and automated segmentation. Mean partial and full Dice similarity coefficients of 0.92 and 0.89, respectively, were achieved for axial automated segmentation. CONCLUSION: Prostate volume estimates obtained with a fully automated 3D segmentation tool based on normalized gradient fields cross-correlation and graph-search refinement can yield highly accurate prostate volume estimates in a clinically relevant time of 10 seconds. This tool will assist in developing a broad range of applications including routine prostate volume estimations, image registration, biopsy guidance, and decision support systems.
Authors: Findlay MacAskill; Su-Min Lee; David Eldred-Evans; Wahyu Wulaningsih; Rick Popert; Konrad Wolfe; Mieke Van Hemelrijck; Giles Rottenberg; Sidath H Liyanage; Peter Acher Journal: Int Urol Nephrol Date: 2017-05-05 Impact factor: 2.370
Authors: Leon Lenchik; Laura Heacock; Ashley A Weaver; Robert D Boutin; Tessa S Cook; Jason Itri; Christopher G Filippi; Rao P Gullapalli; James Lee; Marianna Zagurovskaya; Tara Retson; Kendra Godwin; Joey Nicholson; Ponnada A Narayana Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2019-08-10 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Garry Choy; Omid Khalilzadeh; Mark Michalski; Synho Do; Anthony E Samir; Oleg S Pianykh; J Raymond Geis; Pari V Pandharipande; James A Brink; Keith J Dreyer Journal: Radiology Date: 2018-06-26 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Nelly Tan; Luyao Shen; Pooria Khoshnoodi; Héctor E Alcalá; Weixia Yu; William Hsu; Robert E Reiter; David Y Lu; Steven S Raman Journal: J Urol Date: 2017-11-08 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Alpay Özcan; Barış Türkbey; Peter L Choyke; Oguz Akin; Ömer Aras; Seong K Mun Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2015-04-11 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: Brian P Calio; Abhinav Sidana; Dordaneh Sugano; Sonia Gaur; Mahir Maruf; Amit L Jain; Maria J Merino; Peter L Choyke; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto; Baris Turkbey Journal: J Urol Date: 2018-01-20 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Sherif Mehralivand; Abhishek Kolagunda; Kai Hammerich; Vikram Sabarwal; Stephanie Harmon; Thomas Sanford; Samuel Gold; Graham Hale; Vladimir Valera Romero; Jonathan Bloom; Maria J Merino; Bradford J Wood; Chandra Kambhamettu; Peter L Choyke; Peter A Pinto; Barış Türkbey Journal: Turk J Urol Date: 2019-09-01
Authors: Alex Z Wang; Luke P O’Conno; Nitin K Yerram; Lori Long; Johnathan Zeng; Sherif Mehralivand; Stephanie A Harmon; Amir H Lebastchi; Michael Ahdoot; Patrick T Gomella; Sandeep Gurram; Peter L Choyke; Maria J Merino; Joanna H Shih; Bradford J Wood; Baris Turkbey; Peter A Pinto Journal: J Urol Date: 2020-07-27 Impact factor: 7.450