L Marin1, M Ezziane2, E Comperat3, P Mozer4, G Cancel-Tassin5, J-F Coté6, D Racoceanu1, F Boudghene7, O Lucidarme2, O Cussenot8, R Renard Penna9. 1. Pontifical Catholic University of Peru, Engineering Department, Electrical and Electronics Section, Medical Imaging Lab, San Miguel, Lima 32, Peru. 2. Academic Department of Radiology, Hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière, AP-HP, UPMC University Paris 06, 75013 Paris, France. 3. Academic Department of Pathology, Hôpital Tenon, AP-HP, UPMC University Paris 06, 75020 Paris, France. 4. Academic Department of Urology, Hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière, AP-HP, UPMC University Paris 06, 75013 Paris, France. 5. GRC5, ONCOTYPE-Uro, Institut Universitaire de Cancérologie, 75020 Paris, France. 6. Academic Department of Pathology, Hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière, AP-HP, UPMC University Paris 06, 75013 Paris, France. 7. Academic Department of Radiology, Tenon, Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospitals, AP-HP, UPMC University Paris 06, Paris, France. 8. GRC5, ONCOTYPE-Uro, Institut Universitaire de Cancérologie, 75020 Paris, France; Academic Department of Urology, Hôpital Tenon, AP-HP, UPMC University Paris 06, 75020 Paris, France. 9. Academic Department of Radiology, Hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière, AP-HP, UPMC University Paris 06, 75013 Paris, France; GRC5, ONCOTYPE-Uro, Institut Universitaire de Cancérologie, 75020 Paris, France; Academic Department of Radiology, Tenon, Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospitals, AP-HP, UPMC University Paris 06, Paris, France. Electronic address: raphaele.renardpenna@aphp.fr.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine the accuracy of manual semi-automated and volumetric measurements to assess prostate cancer volume on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MP-MRI) using whole-mount histopathology for validation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We evaluated 30 consecutive men (median age, 65.7 years; interquartile range [IQR], 61.5-70.9 years) with a median prostatic specific antigen of 8.5ng/dL (IQR, 5.5-10.5ng/dL), who underwent MP-MRI before radical prostatectomy. Index tumor volume was determined prospectively and independently on the basis of MRI and whole-mount section volumetric assessment using the maximum histologic diameter (MHD) and the histologic volume (HV). The MRI index tumor volume was determined by two independent radiologists using a single measurement of the maximum tumor dimension (MTD), a simplified MR ellipsoid volume (MREV) calculation and a MR region of interest volume (MROV) segmentation displayed by a commercially available OsiriX®. MTD was compared to MHD, whereas MREV and MROV were compared to HV. RESULTS: Thirty index lesions (median HV, 1.514 cm3; IQR, 0.05-3.780 cm3) were analyzed. The MREV, MROV and HD were significantly correlated with each other (r>0.5). Inter-observer agreement for measurements was good for each method (r>0.780). The MTD was the best predictor of maximum histologic diameter (r=0.980 and 0.791) and had an excellent inter-variability correlation (P<0.0001). CONCLUSION: Prostate cancer histologic volume can be assessed using MREV or MROV with a good accuracy and low inter-observer variability. MTD has the lowest inter-observer variability and provides best degrees of correlation with MHD. MTD should be used on MRI for selecting and following patients for active surveillance and staging before focal treatment of prostate cancer.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine the accuracy of manual semi-automated and volumetric measurements to assess prostate cancer volume on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MP-MRI) using whole-mount histopathology for validation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We evaluated 30 consecutive men (median age, 65.7 years; interquartile range [IQR], 61.5-70.9 years) with a median prostatic specific antigen of 8.5ng/dL (IQR, 5.5-10.5ng/dL), who underwent MP-MRI before radical prostatectomy. Index tumor volume was determined prospectively and independently on the basis of MRI and whole-mount section volumetric assessment using the maximum histologic diameter (MHD) and the histologic volume (HV). The MRI index tumor volume was determined by two independent radiologists using a single measurement of the maximum tumor dimension (MTD), a simplified MR ellipsoid volume (MREV) calculation and a MR region of interest volume (MROV) segmentation displayed by a commercially available OsiriX®. MTD was compared to MHD, whereas MREV and MROV were compared to HV. RESULTS: Thirty index lesions (median HV, 1.514 cm3; IQR, 0.05-3.780 cm3) were analyzed. The MREV, MROV and HD were significantly correlated with each other (r>0.5). Inter-observer agreement for measurements was good for each method (r>0.780). The MTD was the best predictor of maximum histologic diameter (r=0.980 and 0.791) and had an excellent inter-variability correlation (P<0.0001). CONCLUSION:Prostate cancer histologic volume can be assessed using MREV or MROV with a good accuracy and low inter-observer variability. MTD has the lowest inter-observer variability and provides best degrees of correlation with MHD. MTD should be used on MRI for selecting and following patients for active surveillance and staging before focal treatment of prostate cancer.
Authors: Zachary A Glaser; Jennifer B Gordetsky; Kristin K Porter; Sooryanarayana Varambally; Soroush Rais-Bahrami Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2017-10-30 Impact factor: 6.244
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