Alan Priester1, Shyam Natarajan2, Pooria Khoshnoodi3, Daniel J Margolis3, Steven S Raman3, Robert E Reiter4, Jiaoti Huang5, Warren Grundfest1, Leonard S Marks6. 1. Department of Bioengineering, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. 2. Department of Urology, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California; Department of Bioengineering, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. 3. Department of Radiological Sciences, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. 4. Department of Urology, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. 5. Department of Pathology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina. 6. Department of Urology, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. Electronic address: lmarks@mednet.ucla.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We evaluated the accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging in determining the size and shape of localized prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The subjects were 114 men who underwent multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging before radical prostatectomy with patient specific mold processing of the specimen from 2013 to 2015. T2-weighted images were used to contour the prostate capsule and cancer suspicious regions of interest. The contours were used to design and print 3-dimensional custom molds, which permitted alignment of excised prostates with magnetic resonance imaging scans. Tumors were reconstructed in 3 dimensions from digitized whole mount sections. Tumors were then matched with regions of interest and the relative geometries were compared. RESULTS: Of the 222 tumors evident on whole mount sections 118 had been identified on magnetic resonance imaging. For the 118 regions of interest mean volume was 0.8 cc and the longest 3-dimensional diameter was 17 mm. However, for matched pathological tumors, of which most were Gleason score 3 + 4 or greater, mean volume was 2.5 cc and the longest 3-dimensional diameter was 28 mm. The median tumor had a 13.5 mm maximal extent beyond the magnetic resonance imaging contour and 80% of cancer volume from matched tumors was outside region of interest boundaries. Size estimation was most accurate in the axial plane and least accurate along the base-apex axis. CONCLUSIONS: Magnetic resonance imaging consistently underestimates the size and extent of prostate tumors. Prostate cancer foci had an average diameter 11 mm longer and a volume 3 times greater than T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging segmentations. These results may have important implications for the assessment and treatment of prostate cancer.
PURPOSE: We evaluated the accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging in determining the size and shape of localized prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The subjects were 114 men who underwent multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging before radical prostatectomy with patient specific mold processing of the specimen from 2013 to 2015. T2-weighted images were used to contour the prostate capsule and cancer suspicious regions of interest. The contours were used to design and print 3-dimensional custom molds, which permitted alignment of excised prostates with magnetic resonance imaging scans. Tumors were reconstructed in 3 dimensions from digitized whole mount sections. Tumors were then matched with regions of interest and the relative geometries were compared. RESULTS: Of the 222 tumors evident on whole mount sections 118 had been identified on magnetic resonance imaging. For the 118 regions of interest mean volume was 0.8 cc and the longest 3-dimensional diameter was 17 mm. However, for matched pathological tumors, of which most were Gleason score 3 + 4 or greater, mean volume was 2.5 cc and the longest 3-dimensional diameter was 28 mm. The median tumor had a 13.5 mm maximal extent beyond the magnetic resonance imaging contour and 80% of cancer volume from matched tumors was outside region of interest boundaries. Size estimation was most accurate in the axial plane and least accurate along the base-apex axis. CONCLUSIONS: Magnetic resonance imaging consistently underestimates the size and extent of prostate tumors. Prostate cancer foci had an average diameter 11 mm longer and a volume 3 times greater than T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging segmentations. These results may have important implications for the assessment and treatment of prostate cancer.
Authors: Baris Turkbey; Haresh Mani; Vijay Shah; Ardeshir R Rastinehad; Marcelino Bernardo; Thomas Pohida; Yuxi Pang; Dagane Daar; Compton Benjamin; Yolanda L McKinney; Hari Trivedi; Celene Chua; Gennady Bratslavsky; Joanna H Shih; W Marston Linehan; Maria J Merino; Peter L Choyke; Peter A Pinto Journal: J Urol Date: 2011-09-25 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Nelly Tan; Daniel J Margolis; David Y Lu; Kevin G King; Jiaoti Huang; Robert E Reiter; Steven S Raman Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2015-07 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Greetje Groenendaal; Maaike R Moman; Johannes G Korporaal; Paul J van Diest; Marco van Vulpen; Marielle E P Philippens; Uulke A van der Heide Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2010-01-28 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Anant Madabhushi; Michael D Feldman; Dimitris N Metaxas; John Tomaszeweski; Deborah Chute Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 10.048
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: 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: Eli Gibson; Mena Gaed; José A Gómez; Madeleine Moussa; Stephen Pautler; Joseph L Chin; Cathie Crukley; Glenn S Bauman; Aaron Fenster; Aaron D Ward Journal: J Pathol Inform Date: 2013-10-31
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: Elmira Hassanzadeh; Francesco Alessandrino; Olutayo I Olubiyi; Daniel I Glazer; Robert V Mulkern; Andriy Fedorov; Clare M Tempany; Fiona M Fennessy Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2018-05
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: R Ganzer; T Franiel; J Köllermann; T Kuru; D Baumunk; A Blana; B Hadaschik; J von Hardenberg; T Henkel; K-U Köhrmann; U-B Liehr; S Machtens; A Roosen; G Salomon; H-P Schlemmer; L Sentker; J Wendler; U Witzsch; M Schostak Journal: Urologe A Date: 2017-10 Impact factor: 0.639
Authors: J V Hegde; D J Margolis; P-C Wang; R E Reiter; J Huang; M L Steinberg; M Kamrava Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2017-01-31 Impact factor: 5.554