Toru Matsugasumi1, Eduard Baco2, Suzanne Palmer3, Manju Aron4, Yoshinobu Sato5, Norio Fukuda5, Evren Süer2, Jean-Christophe Bernhard2, Hideo Nakagawa1, Raed A Azhar6, Inderbir S Gill2, Osamu Ukimura7. 1. USC Institute of Urology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California; Department of Urology, Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine, Kyoto, Japan. 2. USC Institute of Urology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California. 3. Department of Radiology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California. 4. Department of Pathology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California. 5. Imaging-based Computational Biomedicine Laboratory, Graduate School of Information Science, Nara Institute of Science and Technology, Nara, Japan. 6. USC Institute of Urology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California; Urology Department, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. 7. USC Institute of Urology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California. Electronic address: ukimura@usc.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging often underestimates or overestimates pathological cancer volume. We developed what is to our knowledge a novel method to estimate prostate cancer volume using magnetic resonance/ultrasound fusion, biopsy proven cancer core length. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the records of 81 consecutive patients with magnetic resonance/ultrasound fusion, targeted biopsy proven, clinically localized prostate cancer who underwent subsequent radical prostatectomy. As 7 patients each had 2 visible lesions on magnetic resonance imaging, 88 lesions were analyzed. The dimensions and estimated volume of visible lesions were calculated using apparent diffusion coefficient maps. The modified formula to estimate cancer volume was defined as the formula of vertical stretching in the anteroposterior dimension of the magnetic resonance based 3-dimensional model, in which the imaging estimated lesion anteroposterior dimension was replaced by magnetic resonance/ultrasound targeted, biopsy proven cancer core length. Agreement of pathological cancer volume with magnetic resonance estimated volume or the novel modified volume was assessed using a Bland-Altman plot. RESULTS: Magnetic resonance/ultrasound fusion, biopsy proven cancer core length was a stronger predictor of the actual pathological cancer anteroposterior dimension than magnetic resonance estimated lesion anteroposterior dimension (r = 0.824 vs 0.607, each p <0.001). Magnetic resonance/ultrasound targeted, biopsy proven cancer core length correlated with pathological cancer volume (r = 0.773, p <0.001). The modified formula to estimate cancer volume demonstrated a stronger correlation with pathological cancer volume than with magnetic resonance estimated volume (r = 0.824 vs 0.724, each p <0.001). Agreement of modified volume with pathological cancer volume was improved over that of magnetic resonance estimated volume on Bland-Altman plot analysis. Predictability was more enhanced in the subset of lesions with a volume of 2 ml or less (ie if spherical, the lesion was approximately 16 mm in diameter). CONCLUSIONS: Combining magnetic resonance estimated cancer volume with magnetic resonance/ultrasound fusion, biopsy proven cancer core length improved cancer volume predictability.
PURPOSE: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging often underestimates or overestimates pathological cancer volume. We developed what is to our knowledge a novel method to estimate prostate cancer volume using magnetic resonance/ultrasound fusion, biopsy proven cancer core length. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the records of 81 consecutive patients with magnetic resonance/ultrasound fusion, targeted biopsy proven, clinically localized prostate cancer who underwent subsequent radical prostatectomy. As 7 patients each had 2 visible lesions on magnetic resonance imaging, 88 lesions were analyzed. The dimensions and estimated volume of visible lesions were calculated using apparent diffusion coefficient maps. The modified formula to estimate cancer volume was defined as the formula of vertical stretching in the anteroposterior dimension of the magnetic resonance based 3-dimensional model, in which the imaging estimated lesion anteroposterior dimension was replaced by magnetic resonance/ultrasound targeted, biopsy proven cancer core length. Agreement of pathological cancer volume with magnetic resonance estimated volume or the novel modified volume was assessed using a Bland-Altman plot. RESULTS: Magnetic resonance/ultrasound fusion, biopsy proven cancer core length was a stronger predictor of the actual pathological cancer anteroposterior dimension than magnetic resonance estimated lesion anteroposterior dimension (r = 0.824 vs 0.607, each p <0.001). Magnetic resonance/ultrasound targeted, biopsy proven cancer core length correlated with pathological cancer volume (r = 0.773, p <0.001). The modified formula to estimate cancer volume demonstrated a stronger correlation with pathological cancer volume than with magnetic resonance estimated volume (r = 0.824 vs 0.724, each p <0.001). Agreement of modified volume with pathological cancer volume was improved over that of magnetic resonance estimated volume on Bland-Altman plot analysis. Predictability was more enhanced in the subset of lesions with a volume of 2 ml or less (ie if spherical, the lesion was approximately 16 mm in diameter). CONCLUSIONS: Combining magnetic resonance estimated cancer volume with magnetic resonance/ultrasound fusion, biopsy proven cancer core length improved cancer volume predictability.
Authors: Olivio F Donati; Asim Afaq; Hebert Alberto Vargas; Yousef Mazaheri; Junting Zheng; Chaya S Moskowitz; Hedvig Hricak; Oguz Akin Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2014-05-21 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: F Cornud; Gaby Khoury; Naim Bouazza; Frederic Beuvon; Michael Peyromaure; Thierry Flam; Marc Zerbib; Paul Legmann; Nicolas B Delongchamps Journal: J Urol Date: 2013-12-12 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Fergus V Coakley; John Kurhanewicz; Ying Lu; Kirk D Jones; Mark G Swanson; Silvia D Chang; Peter R Carroll; Hedvig Hricak Journal: Radiology Date: 2002-04 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Daniel Junker; Georg Schäfer; Conrad Kobel; Christian Kremser; Jasmin Bektic; Werner Jaschke; Friedrich Aigner Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2014-03 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Veeru Kasivisvanathan; Robert Dufour; Caroline M Moore; Hashim U Ahmed; Mohamed Abd-Alazeez; Susan C Charman; Alex Freeman; Clare Allen; Alex Kirkham; Jan van der Meulen; Mark Emberton Journal: J Urol Date: 2012-10-11 Impact factor: 7.450
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: Sofie Isebaert; Laura Van den Bergh; Karin Haustermans; Steven Joniau; Evelyne Lerut; Liesbeth De Wever; Frederik De Keyzer; Tom Budiharto; Pieter Slagmolen; Hendrik Van Poppel; Raymond Oyen Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2012-11-21 Impact factor: 4.813
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: Ely R Felker; Jason Wu; Shyam Natarajan; Daniel J Margolis; Steven S Raman; Jiaoti Huang; Fred Dorey; Leonard S Marks Journal: J Urol Date: 2015-12-07 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Demetrios N Simopoulos; Anthony E Sisk; Alan Priester; Ely R Felker; Lorna Kwan; Merdie K Delfin; Robert E Reiter; Leonard S Marks Journal: BJU Int Date: 2019-02-24 Impact factor: 5.969
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
Authors: Nooshin Ghavami; Yipeng Hu; Eli Gibson; Ester Bonmati; Mark Emberton; Caroline M Moore; Dean C Barratt Journal: Med Image Anal Date: 2019-09-11 Impact factor: 8.545
Authors: Ryan Stuchbery; Geoff Macintyre; Marek Cmero; Laurence M Harewood; Justin S Peters; Anthony J Costello; Christopher M Hovens; Niall M Corcoran Journal: Oncotarget Date: 2016-05-24