Julien Le Nobin1,2, Clément Orczyk1,3, Fang-Ming Deng4, Jonathan Melamed4, Henry Rusinek5, Samir S Taneja1, Andrew B Rosenkrantz5. 1. Department of Urology, Division of Urological Oncology, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, NY, USA. 2. Department of Urology, University Hospital of Lille, Lille, France. 3. Department of Urology and Renal Transplantation/UMR 6301-Cervoxy Group, University Hospital of Caen, Caen, France. 4. Department of Pathology, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, NY, USA. 5. Department of Radiology, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, NY, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the agreement between prostate tumour volume determined using multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and that determined by histological assessment, using detailed software-assisted co-registration. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 37 patients who underwent 3T multiparametric MRI (T2-weighted imaging [T2WI], diffusion-weighted imaging [DWI]/apparent diffusion coefficient [ADC], dynamic contrast-enhanced [DCE] imaging) were included. A radiologist traced the borders of suspicious lesions on T2WI and ADC and assigned a suspicion score of between 2 and 5, while a uropathologist traced the borders of tumours on histopathological photographs. Software was used to co-register MRI and three-dimensional digital reconstructions of radical prostatectomy specimens and to compute imaging and histopathological volumes. Agreement in volumes between MRI and histology was assessed using Bland-Altman plots and stratified by tumour characteristics. RESULTS: Among 50 tumours, the mean differences (95% limits of agreement) in MRI relative to histology were -32% (-128 to +65%) on T2WI and -47% (-143 to +49%) on ADC. For all tumour subsets, volume underestimation was more marked on ADC maps (mean difference ranging from -57 to -16%) than on T2WI (mean difference ranging from -45 to +2%). The 95% limits of agreement were wide for all comparisons, with the lower 95% limit ranging between -77 and -143% across assessments. Volume underestimation was more marked for tumours with a Gleason score ≥7 or a MRI suspicion score 4 or 5. CONCLUSION: Volume estimates of prostate cancer using MRI tended to substantially underestimate histopathological volumes, with a wide variability in extent of underestimation across cases. These findings have implications for efforts to use MRI to guide risk assessment.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the agreement between prostate tumour volume determined using multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and that determined by histological assessment, using detailed software-assisted co-registration. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 37 patients who underwent 3T multiparametric MRI (T2-weighted imaging [T2WI], diffusion-weighted imaging [DWI]/apparent diffusion coefficient [ADC], dynamic contrast-enhanced [DCE] imaging) were included. A radiologist traced the borders of suspicious lesions on T2WI and ADC and assigned a suspicion score of between 2 and 5, while a uropathologist traced the borders of tumours on histopathological photographs. Software was used to co-register MRI and three-dimensional digital reconstructions of radical prostatectomy specimens and to compute imaging and histopathological volumes. Agreement in volumes between MRI and histology was assessed using Bland-Altman plots and stratified by tumour characteristics. RESULTS: Among 50 tumours, the mean differences (95% limits of agreement) in MRI relative to histology were -32% (-128 to +65%) on T2WI and -47% (-143 to +49%) on ADC. For all tumour subsets, volume underestimation was more marked on ADC maps (mean difference ranging from -57 to -16%) than on T2WI (mean difference ranging from -45 to +2%). The 95% limits of agreement were wide for all comparisons, with the lower 95% limit ranging between -77 and -143% across assessments. Volume underestimation was more marked for tumours with a Gleason score ≥7 or a MRI suspicion score 4 or 5. CONCLUSION: Volume estimates of prostate cancer using MRI tended to substantially underestimate histopathological volumes, with a wide variability in extent of underestimation across cases. These findings have implications for efforts to use MRI to guide risk assessment.
Authors: Courtney A Woodfield; Glenn A Tung; David J Grand; John A Pezzullo; Jason T Machan; Joseph F Renzulli Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 3.959
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: Aytekin Oto; Ila Sethi; Gregory Karczmar; Roger McNichols; Marko K Ivancevic; Walter M Stadler; Sydeaka Watson; Scott Eggener Journal: Radiology Date: 2013-02-25 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Yousef Mazaheri; Hedvig Hricak; Samson W Fine; Oguz Akin; Amita Shukla-Dave; Nicole M Ishill; Chaya S Moskowitz; Joanna E Grater; Victor E Reuter; Kristen L Zakian; Karim A Touijer; Jason A Koutcher Journal: Radiology Date: 2009-08 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Deanna L Langer; Theodorus H van der Kwast; Andrew J Evans; Laibao Sun; Martin J Yaffe; John Trachtenberg; Masoom A Haider Journal: Radiology Date: 2008-12 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Masatomo Kaneko; Dordaneh Sugano; Amir H Lebastchi; Vinay Duddalwar; Jamal Nabhani; Christopher Haiman; Inderbir S Gill; Giovanni E Cacciamani; Andre Luis Abreu Journal: Curr Urol Rep Date: 2021-03-22 Impact factor: 3.092
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: 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: Jorge Abreu-Gomez; Daniel Walker; Tareq Alotaibi; Matthew D F McInnes; Trevor A Flood; Nicola Schieda Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2020-03-24 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: S F Riches; G S Payne; V A Morgan; D Dearnaley; S Morgan; M Partridge; N Livni; C Ogden; N M deSouza Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-03-07 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Andriy Fedorov; Tobias Penzkofer; Michelle S Hirsch; Trevor A Flood; Mark G Vangel; Paul Masry; Clare M Tempany; Robert V Mulkern; Fiona M Fennessy Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2015-02-13 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Francesco Giganti; Vasilis Stavrinides; Armando Stabile; Elizabeth Osinibi; Clement Orczyk; Jan Philipp Radtke; Alex Freeman; Aiman Haider; Shonit Punwani; Clare Allen; Mark Emberton; Alex Kirkham; Caroline M Moore Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2020-09-21 Impact factor: 3.039