Mekhail Anwar1, Antonio C Westphalen2, Adam J Jung2, Susan M Noworolski3, Jeffry P Simko4, John Kurhanewicz3, Mack Roach5, Peter R Carroll6, Fergus V Coakley7. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California San Francisco, USA. Electronic address: anwarme@radonc.ucsf.edu. 2. Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California San Francisco, USA. 3. Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California San Francisco, USA; UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California San Francisco, USA; The Graduate Group in Bioengineering, University of California San Francisco, USA; University of California Berkeley, USA. 4. Department of Anatomic Pathology, University of California San Francisco, USA; UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California San Francisco, USA. 5. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California San Francisco, USA; UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California San Francisco, USA. 6. Department of Urology, University of California San Francisco, USA; UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California San Francisco, USA. 7. Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California San Francisco, USA; Department of Urology, University of California San Francisco, USA; UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California San Francisco, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate the role of endorectal MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging in defining the contour of treatable intraprostatic tumor foci in prostate cancer, since targeted therapy requires accurate target volume definition. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively identified 20 patients with prostate cancer who underwent endorectal MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging prior to radical prostatectomy and subsequent creation of detailed histopathological tumor maps from whole-mount step sections. Two experienced radiologists independently reviewed all MR images and electronically contoured all suspected treatable (≥0.5 cm(3)) tumor foci. Deformable co-registration in MATLAB was used to calculate the margin of error between imaging and histopathological contours at both capsular and non-capsular surfaces and the treatment margin required to ensure at least 95% tumor coverage. RESULTS: Histopathology showed 17 treatable tumor foci in 16 patients, of which 8 were correctly identified by both readers and an additional 2 were correctly identified by reader 2. For all correctly identified lesions, both readers accurately identified that tumor contacted the prostatic capsule, with no error in contour identification. On the non-capsular border, the median distance between the imaging and histopathological contour was 1.4mm (range, 0-12). Expanding the contour by 5mm at the non-capsular margin included 95% of tumor volume not initially covered within the MR contour. CONCLUSIONS: Endorectal MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging can be used to accurately contour treatable intraprostatic tumor foci; adequate tumor coverage is achieved by expanding the treatment contour at the non-capsular margin by 5mm.
PURPOSE: To investigate the role of endorectal MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging in defining the contour of treatable intraprostatic tumor foci in prostate cancer, since targeted therapy requires accurate target volume definition. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively identified 20 patients with prostate cancer who underwent endorectal MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging prior to radical prostatectomy and subsequent creation of detailed histopathological tumor maps from whole-mount step sections. Two experienced radiologists independently reviewed all MR images and electronically contoured all suspected treatable (≥0.5 cm(3)) tumor foci. Deformable co-registration in MATLAB was used to calculate the margin of error between imaging and histopathological contours at both capsular and non-capsular surfaces and the treatment margin required to ensure at least 95% tumor coverage. RESULTS: Histopathology showed 17 treatable tumor foci in 16 patients, of which 8 were correctly identified by both readers and an additional 2 were correctly identified by reader 2. For all correctly identified lesions, both readers accurately identified that tumor contacted the prostatic capsule, with no error in contour identification. On the non-capsular border, the median distance between the imaging and histopathological contour was 1.4mm (range, 0-12). Expanding the contour by 5mm at the non-capsular margin included 95% of tumor volume not initially covered within the MR contour. CONCLUSIONS: Endorectal MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging can be used to accurately contour treatable intraprostatic tumor foci; adequate tumor coverage is achieved by expanding the treatment contour at the non-capsular margin by 5mm.
Authors: Jonathan Chappelow; B Nicolas Bloch; Neil Rofsky; Elizabeth Genega; Robert Lenkinski; William DeWolf; Anant Madabhushi Journal: Med Phys Date: 2011-04 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: K K Yu; J Scheidler; H Hricak; D B Vigneron; C J Zaloudek; R G Males; S J Nelson; P R Carroll; J Kurhanewicz Journal: Radiology Date: 1999-11 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Steven J DiBiase; Keya Hosseinzadeh; Rao P Gullapalli; Stephen C Jacobs; Michael J Naslund; Geoffrey N Sklar; Richard B Alexander; Cedric Yu Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2002-02-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Baris Turkbey; Haresh Mani; Omer Aras; Ardeshir R Rastinehad; Vijay Shah; Marcelino Bernardo; Thomas Pohida; Dagane Daar; Compton Benjamin; Yolanda L McKinney; W Marston Linehan; Bradford J Wood; Maria J Merino; Peter L Choyke; Peter A Pinto Journal: J Urol Date: 2012-08-15 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Navid Samavati; Deirdre M McGrath; Jenny Lee; Theodorus van Kwast; Michael Jewett; Cynthia Ménard; Kristy K Brock Journal: J Pathol Inform Date: 2012-01-19
Authors: Julien Le Nobin; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Arnauld Villers; Clément Orczyk; Fang-Ming Deng; Jonathan Melamed; Artem Mikheev; Henry Rusinek; Samir S Taneja Journal: J Urol Date: 2015-02-21 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Nam P Nguyen; Rick Davis; Satya R Bose; Suresh Dutta; Vincent Vinh-Hung; Alexander Chi; Juan Godinez; Anand Desai; William Woods; Gabor Altdorfer; Mark D'Andrea; Ulf Karlsson; Richard A Vo; Thomas Sroka Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2015-02-02 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Michael S Leapman; Zhen J Wang; Spencer C Behr; John Kurhanewicz; Ronald J Zagoria; Peter R Carroll; Antonio C Westphalen Journal: Radiol Bras Date: 2017 Sep-Oct
Authors: Maria Kramer; Simon K B Spohn; Selina Kiefer; Lara Ceci; August Sigle; Benedict Oerther; Wolfgang Schultze-Seemann; Christian Gratzke; Michael Bock; Fabian Bamberg; Anca L Grosu; Matthias Benndorf; Constantinos Zamboglou Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2020-11-23 Impact factor: 6.244