Julien Le Nobin1, Andrew B Rosenkrantz2, Arnauld Villers3, Clément Orczyk4, Fang-Ming Deng5, Jonathan Melamed5, Artem Mikheev2, Henry Rusinek2, Samir S Taneja4. 1. Division of Urologic Oncology, Department of Urology, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, New York; Departments of Urology, University Hospital of Lille, Lille and Unités Mixtes de Recherche 6301-CERVOxy Group, University Hospital of Caen, Caen, France. Electronic address: julien.lenobin@gmail.com. 2. Department of Radiology, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, New York. 3. Departments of Urology, University Hospital of Lille, Lille and Unités Mixtes de Recherche 6301-CERVOxy Group, University Hospital of Caen, Caen, France. 4. Division of Urologic Oncology, Department of Urology, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, New York. 5. Department of Pathology, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, New York.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We compared prostate tumor boundaries on magnetic resonance imaging and radical prostatectomy histological assessment using detailed software assisted co-registration to define an optimal treatment margin for achieving complete tumor destruction during image guided focal ablation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Included in study were 33 patients who underwent 3 Tesla magnetic resonance imaging before radical prostatectomy. A radiologist traced lesion borders on magnetic resonance imaging and assigned a suspicion score of 2 to 5. Three-dimensional reconstructions were created from high resolution digitalized slides of radical prostatectomy specimens and co-registered to imaging using advanced software. Tumors were compared between histology and imaging by the Hausdorff distance and stratified by the magnetic resonance imaging suspicion score, Gleason score and lesion diameter. Cylindrical volume estimates of treatment effects were used to define the optimal treatment margin. RESULTS: Three-dimensional software based registration with magnetic resonance imaging was done in 46 histologically confirmed cancers. Imaging underestimated tumor size with a maximal discrepancy between imaging and histological boundaries for a given tumor of an average ± SD of 1.99 ± 3.1 mm, representing 18.5% of the diameter on imaging. Boundary underestimation was larger for lesions with an imaging suspicion score 4 or greater (mean 3.49 ± 2.1 mm, p <0.001) and a Gleason score of 7 or greater (mean 2.48 ± 2.8 mm, p = 0.035). A simulated cylindrical treatment volume based on the imaging boundary missed an average 14.8% of tumor volume compared to that based on the histological boundary. A simulated treatment volume based on a 9 mm treatment margin achieved complete histological tumor destruction in 100% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: Magnetic resonance imaging underestimates histologically determined tumor boundaries, especially for lesions with a high imaging suspicion score and a high Gleason score. A 9 mm treatment margin around a lesion visible on magnetic resonance imaging would consistently ensure treatment of the entire histological tumor volume during focal ablative therapy.
PURPOSE: We compared prostate tumor boundaries on magnetic resonance imaging and radical prostatectomy histological assessment using detailed software assisted co-registration to define an optimal treatment margin for achieving complete tumor destruction during image guided focal ablation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Included in study were 33 patients who underwent 3 Tesla magnetic resonance imaging before radical prostatectomy. A radiologist traced lesion borders on magnetic resonance imaging and assigned a suspicion score of 2 to 5. Three-dimensional reconstructions were created from high resolution digitalized slides of radical prostatectomy specimens and co-registered to imaging using advanced software. Tumors were compared between histology and imaging by the Hausdorff distance and stratified by the magnetic resonance imaging suspicion score, Gleason score and lesion diameter. Cylindrical volume estimates of treatment effects were used to define the optimal treatment margin. RESULTS: Three-dimensional software based registration with magnetic resonance imaging was done in 46 histologically confirmed cancers. Imaging underestimated tumor size with a maximal discrepancy between imaging and histological boundaries for a given tumor of an average ± SD of 1.99 ± 3.1 mm, representing 18.5% of the diameter on imaging. Boundary underestimation was larger for lesions with an imaging suspicion score 4 or greater (mean 3.49 ± 2.1 mm, p <0.001) and a Gleason score of 7 or greater (mean 2.48 ± 2.8 mm, p = 0.035). A simulated cylindrical treatment volume based on the imaging boundary missed an average 14.8% of tumor volume compared to that based on the histological boundary. A simulated treatment volume based on a 9 mm treatment margin achieved complete histological tumor destruction in 100% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: Magnetic resonance imaging underestimates histologically determined tumor boundaries, especially for lesions with a high imaging suspicion score and a high Gleason score. A 9 mm treatment margin around a lesion visible on magnetic resonance imaging would consistently ensure treatment of the entire histological tumor volume during focal ablative therapy.
Authors: Caroline M A Hoeks; Jelle O Barentsz; Thomas Hambrock; Derya Yakar; Diederik M Somford; Stijn W T P J Heijmink; Tom W J Scheenen; Pieter C Vos; Henkjan Huisman; Inge M van Oort; J Alfred Witjes; Arend Heerschap; Jurgen J Fütterer Journal: Radiology Date: 2011-10 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Mekhail Anwar; Antonio C Westphalen; Adam J Jung; Susan M Noworolski; Jeffry P Simko; John Kurhanewicz; Mack Roach; Peter R Carroll; Fergus V Coakley Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2014-01-17 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Joyce G R Bomers; Derya Yakar; Christiaan G Overduin; J P Michiel Sedelaar; Henk Vergunst; Jelle O Barentsz; Frank de Lange; Jurgen J Fütterer Journal: Radiology Date: 2013-03-22 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: Clayton P Smith; Stephanie A Harmon; Tristan Barrett; Leonardo K Bittencourt; Yan Mee Law; Haytham Shebel; Julie Y An; Marcin Czarniecki; Sherif Mehralivand; Mehmet Coskun; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto; Joanna H Shih; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2018-12-21 Impact factor: 4.813
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: Rafael R Tourinho-Barbosa; Lucas Teixeira Batista; Xavier Cathelineau; Javier Sanchez-Macias; Rafael Sanchez-Salas Journal: Turk J Urol Date: 2020-10-09
Authors: Marc A Bjurlin; Peter R Carroll; Scott Eggener; Pat F Fulgham; Daniel J Margolis; Peter A Pinto; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Jonathan N Rubenstein; Daniel B Rukstalis; Samir S Taneja; Baris Turkbey Journal: J Urol Date: 2019-10-23 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Ariel A Schulman; Christina Sze; Efrat Tsivian; Rajan T Gupta; Judd W Moul; Thomas J Polascik Journal: Curr Urol Rep Date: 2017-07 Impact factor: 3.092
Authors: Baris Turkbey; Anna M Brown; Sandeep Sankineni; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto; Peter L Choyke Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2015-11-23 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Francesca V Mertan; Matthew D Greer; Sam Borofsky; Ismail M Kabakus; Maria J Merino; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey Journal: Top Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2016-06