Yousef Mazaheri1, Debra A Goldman2, Pier Luigi Di Paolo3, Oguz Akin3, Hedvig Hricak3. 1. Department of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, New York, NY 10605; Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY. Electronic address: mazahery@mskcc.org. 2. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY. 3. Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY.
Abstract
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To compare prostate volume measurements from 3-Tesla endorectal coil magnetic resonance imaging (ERC MRI) obtained with the prolate ellipsoid volume formula (EVF) and volumetry to pathology-based volume measurements. METHODS: The institutional review board waived informed consent for this retrospective, health insurance portability and accountability act (HIPAA) compliant study, which included 195 patients who underwent 3-T ERC MRI between January 2008 and October 2011 and had pathologic prostate measurements available. Two readers in consensus measured the prostate length, height, and width on each MRI. They estimated prostate volumes using the prolate EVF (length × height × width × [π/6]) and also by performing three-dimensional volumetry. Pathologic specimen mass and dimensions were used to calculate prostate volume. Agreement was measured with Lin's concordance correlation coefficient (CCC). Volume differences were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Correct prostate-specific antigen (PSA) density classification rates were compared between EVF-based and volumetry-based PSA density levels using the exact McNemar test, with pathology-based PSA density as the reference standard. RESULTS: Concordance was high between EVF and volumetry measurements (CCC, 0.950 [95% confidence interval, 0.935-0.962]) and between both kinds of MRI measurements and pathology (both CCC > 0.80). Based on a cut-off of ≤0.15 ng/mL/cm(3), use of EVF-based volume produced correct classification of 46 of 48 PSA density levels >15 ng/mL/cm(3) and 113 of 147 PSA density levels ≤15 ng/mL/cm(3); use of volumetry-based volume produced correct classification of 47 of 48 PSA density levels >15 ng/mL/cm(3) and 121 of 147 PSA density levels ≤15 ng/mL/cm(3). Rates of underclassification (P > .95) and overclassification (P = .10) did not differ significantly between EVF and volumetry. CONCLUSIONS: EVF appears to be suitable for measuring prostate volume from ERC-MRI.
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To compare prostate volume measurements from 3-Tesla endorectal coil magnetic resonance imaging (ERC MRI) obtained with the prolate ellipsoid volume formula (EVF) and volumetry to pathology-based volume measurements. METHODS: The institutional review board waived informed consent for this retrospective, health insurance portability and accountability act (HIPAA) compliant study, which included 195 patients who underwent 3-T ERC MRI between January 2008 and October 2011 and had pathologic prostate measurements available. Two readers in consensus measured the prostate length, height, and width on each MRI. They estimated prostate volumes using the prolate EVF (length × height × width × [π/6]) and also by performing three-dimensional volumetry. Pathologic specimen mass and dimensions were used to calculate prostate volume. Agreement was measured with Lin's concordance correlation coefficient (CCC). Volume differences were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Correct prostate-specific antigen (PSA) density classification rates were compared between EVF-based and volumetry-based PSA density levels using the exact McNemar test, with pathology-based PSA density as the reference standard. RESULTS: Concordance was high between EVF and volumetry measurements (CCC, 0.950 [95% confidence interval, 0.935-0.962]) and between both kinds of MRI measurements and pathology (both CCC > 0.80). Based on a cut-off of ≤0.15 ng/mL/cm(3), use of EVF-based volume produced correct classification of 46 of 48 PSA density levels >15 ng/mL/cm(3) and 113 of 147 PSA density levels ≤15 ng/mL/cm(3); use of volumetry-based volume produced correct classification of 47 of 48 PSA density levels >15 ng/mL/cm(3) and 121 of 147 PSA density levels ≤15 ng/mL/cm(3). Rates of underclassification (P > .95) and overclassification (P = .10) did not differ significantly between EVF and volumetry. CONCLUSIONS: EVF appears to be suitable for measuring prostate volume from ERC-MRI.
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: Scott Alan Blaine; Haidar M Abdul-Muhsin; Nicholas J Jakob; Paul E Andrews; Robert G Ferrigni; Stephen S Cha; Ashkahn Golshani; Alvin C Silva; Akira Kawashima; Mitchell R Humphreys Journal: Indian J Urol Date: 2019 Jul-Sep
Authors: Michela Antonelli; Edward W Johnston; Nikolaos Dikaios; King K Cheung; Harbir S Sidhu; Mrishta B Appayya; Francesco Giganti; Lucy A M Simmons; Alex Freeman; Clare Allen; Hashim U Ahmed; David Atkinson; Sebastien Ourselin; Shonit Punwani Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2019-06-11 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Daniel Stocker; Andrei Manoliu; Anton S Becker; Borna K Barth; Daniel Nanz; Markus Klarhöfer; Olivio F Donati Journal: Eur J Radiol Open Date: 2021-02-03