Joe H Chang1, Daryl Lim Joon2, Ian D Davis3, Sze Ting Lee4, Chee-Yan Hiew5, Stephen Esler5, Sylvia J Gong6, Morikatsu Wada2, David Clouston7, Richard O'Sullivan8, Yin P Goh9, Damien Bolton10, Andrew M Scott4, Vincent Khoo11. 1. Radiation Oncology Centre, Austin Health, Victoria, Australia; University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 2. Radiation Oncology Centre, Austin Health, Victoria, Australia. 3. Monash University Eastern Health Clinical School, Victoria, Australia. 4. University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Centre for PET, Austin Health, Victoria, Australia; Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research, Victoria, Australia. 5. Department of Radiology, Austin Health, Victoria, Australia. 6. Centre for PET, Austin Health, Victoria, Australia. 7. Tissupath, Mt Waverley, Victoria, Australia. 8. Healthcare Imaging, Epworth Hospital, Victoria, Australia. 9. Diagnostic Imaging, Monash Health, Victoria, Australia. 10. Department of Urology, Austin Health, Victoria, Australia. 11. Radiation Oncology Centre, Austin Health, Victoria, Australia; University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Royal Marsden Hospital, National Health Service Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom; Department of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences, Monash University, Victoria, Australia. Electronic address: vincent.khoo@rmh.nhs.uk.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of [(11)C]choline positron emission tomography (CHOL-PET) with that of the combination of T2-weighted and diffusion-weighted (T2W/DW) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for delineating malignant intraprostatic lesions (IPLs) for guiding focal therapies and to investigate factors predicting the accuracy of CHOL-PET. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This study included 21 patients who underwent CHOL-PET and T2W/DW MRI prior to radical prostatectomy. Two observers manually delineated IPL contours for each scan, and automatic IPL contours were generated on CHOL-PET based on varying proportions of the maximum standardized uptake value (SUV). IPLs identified on prostatectomy specimens defined reference standard contours. The imaging-based contours were compared with the reference standard contours using Dice similarity coefficient (DSC), and sensitivity and specificity values. Factors that could potentially predict the DSC of the best contouring method were analyzed using linear models. RESULTS: The best automatic contouring method, 60% of the maximum SUV (SUV60) , had similar correlations (DSC: 0.59) with the manual PET contours (DSC: 0.52, P=.127) and significantly better correlations than the manual MRI contours (DSC: 0.37, P<.001). The sensitivity and specificity values were 72% and 71% for SUV60; 53% and 86% for PET manual contouring; and 28% and 92% for MRI manual contouring. The tumor volume and transition zone pattern could independently predict the accuracy of CHOL-PET. CONCLUSIONS: CHOL-PET is superior to the combination of T2W/DW MRI for delineating IPLs. The accuracy of CHOL-PET is insufficient for gland-sparing focal therapies but may be accurate enough for focal boost therapies. The transition zone pattern is a new classification that may predict how well CHOL-PET delineates IPLs.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of [(11)C]choline positron emission tomography (CHOL-PET) with that of the combination of T2-weighted and diffusion-weighted (T2W/DW) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for delineating malignant intraprostatic lesions (IPLs) for guiding focal therapies and to investigate factors predicting the accuracy of CHOL-PET. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This study included 21 patients who underwent CHOL-PET and T2W/DW MRI prior to radical prostatectomy. Two observers manually delineated IPL contours for each scan, and automatic IPL contours were generated on CHOL-PET based on varying proportions of the maximum standardized uptake value (SUV). IPLs identified on prostatectomy specimens defined reference standard contours. The imaging-based contours were compared with the reference standard contours using Dice similarity coefficient (DSC), and sensitivity and specificity values. Factors that could potentially predict the DSC of the best contouring method were analyzed using linear models. RESULTS: The best automatic contouring method, 60% of the maximum SUV (SUV60) , had similar correlations (DSC: 0.59) with the manual PET contours (DSC: 0.52, P=.127) and significantly better correlations than the manual MRI contours (DSC: 0.37, P<.001). The sensitivity and specificity values were 72% and 71% for SUV60; 53% and 86% for PET manual contouring; and 28% and 92% for MRI manual contouring. The tumor volume and transition zone pattern could independently predict the accuracy of CHOL-PET. CONCLUSIONS:CHOL-PET is superior to the combination of T2W/DW MRI for delineating IPLs. The accuracy of CHOL-PET is insufficient for gland-sparing focal therapies but may be accurate enough for focal boost therapies. The transition zone pattern is a new classification that may predict how well CHOL-PET delineates IPLs.
Authors: Constantinos Zamboglou; Vanessa Drendel; Cordula A Jilg; Hans C Rischke; Teresa I Beck; Wolfgang Schultze-Seemann; Tobias Krauss; Michael Mix; Florian Schiller; Ulrich Wetterauer; Martin Werner; Mathias Langer; Michael Bock; Philipp T Meyer; Anca L Grosu Journal: Theranostics Date: 2017-01-01 Impact factor: 11.556
Authors: Hans Theodor Eich; Kambiz Rahbar; Sergiu Scobioala; Christopher Kittel; Heidi Wolters; Sebastian Huss; Khaled Elsayad; Robert Seifert; Lars Stegger; Matthias Weckesser; Uwe Haverkamp Journal: Ann Nucl Med Date: 2021-03-19 Impact factor: 2.668
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