OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the anatomical registration of preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and prostate whole-mount obtained with 3D-printed, patient-specific, MRI-derived molds (PSM) versus conventional whole-mount sectioning (WMS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Based on an a priori power analysis, this institutional review board-approved study prospectively included 50 consecutive men who underwent 3 T multiparametric prostate MRI followed by radical prostatectomy. Two blinded and independent readers (R1 and R2) outlined the contours of the prostate, tumor, peripheral, and transition zones in the MRI scans using regions of interest. These were compared with the corresponding regions of interest from the whole-mounted histopathology, the reference standard, using PSM whole-mount results obtained in the study group (n = 25) or conventional WMS in the control group (n = 25). The spatial overlap across the MRI and histology data sets was calculated using the Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) for the prostate overall (DSCprostate), tumor (DSCtumor), peripheral (DSCPZ), and transition (DSCTZ) zone. Results in the study and control groups were compared using Wilcoxon rank sum test. RESULTS: The MRI histopathology anatomical registration for the prostate gland overall, tumor, peripheral, and transition zones were significantly superior with the use of PSMs (DSCs for R1: 0.95, 0.86, 0.84, and 0.89; for R2: 0.93, 0.75, 0.78, and 0.85, respectively) than with the use of standard WMS (R1: 0.85, 0.46, 0.66, and 0.69; R2: 0.85, 0.46, 0.66, and 0.69) (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The use of PSMs for prostate specimen whole-mount sectioning provides significantly superior anatomical registration of in vivo multiparametric MRI and ex vivo prostate whole-mounts than conventional WMS.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the anatomical registration of preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and prostate whole-mount obtained with 3D-printed, patient-specific, MRI-derived molds (PSM) versus conventional whole-mount sectioning (WMS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Based on an a priori power analysis, this institutional review board-approved study prospectively included 50 consecutive men who underwent 3 T multiparametric prostate MRI followed by radical prostatectomy. Two blinded and independent readers (R1 and R2) outlined the contours of the prostate, tumor, peripheral, and transition zones in the MRI scans using regions of interest. These were compared with the corresponding regions of interest from the whole-mounted histopathology, the reference standard, using PSM whole-mount results obtained in the study group (n = 25) or conventional WMS in the control group (n = 25). The spatial overlap across the MRI and histology data sets was calculated using the Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) for the prostate overall (DSCprostate), tumor (DSCtumor), peripheral (DSCPZ), and transition (DSCTZ) zone. Results in the study and control groups were compared using Wilcoxon rank sum test. RESULTS: The MRI histopathology anatomical registration for the prostate gland overall, tumor, peripheral, and transition zones were significantly superior with the use of PSMs (DSCs for R1: 0.95, 0.86, 0.84, and 0.89; for R2: 0.93, 0.75, 0.78, and 0.85, respectively) than with the use of standard WMS (R1: 0.85, 0.46, 0.66, and 0.69; R2: 0.85, 0.46, 0.66, and 0.69) (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The use of PSMs for prostate specimen whole-mount sectioning provides significantly superior anatomical registration of in vivo multiparametric MRI and ex vivo prostate whole-mounts than conventional WMS.
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: Hemamali Samaratunga; Rodolfo Montironi; Lawrence True; Jonathan I Epstein; David F Griffiths; Peter A Humphrey; Theo van der Kwast; Thomas M Wheeler; John R Srigley; Brett Delahunt; Lars Egevad Journal: Mod Pathol Date: 2010-09-10 Impact factor: 7.842
Authors: M Minhaj Siddiqui; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Baris Turkbey; Arvin K George; Jason Rothwax; Nabeel Shakir; Chinonyerem Okoro; Dima Raskolnikov; Howard L Parnes; W Marston Linehan; Maria J Merino; Richard M Simon; Peter L Choyke; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto Journal: JAMA Date: 2015-01-27 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Hari Trivedi; Baris Turkbey; Ardeshir R Rastinehad; Compton J Benjamin; Marcelino Bernardo; Thomas Pohida; Vijay Shah; Maria J Merino; Bradford J Wood; W Marston Linehan; Aradhana M Venkatesan; Peter L Choyke; Peter A Pinto Journal: Urology Date: 2012-01 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Thomas Hambrock; Diederik M Somford; Henkjan J Huisman; Inge M van Oort; J Alfred Witjes; Christina A Hulsbergen-van de Kaa; Thomas Scheenen; Jelle O Barentsz Journal: Radiology Date: 2011-05 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Qing Yuan; Daniel N Costa; Julien Sénégas; Yin Xi; Andrea J Wiethoff; Neil M Rofsky; Claus Roehrborn; Robert E Lenkinski; Ivan Pedrosa Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2016-07-21 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Yahui Peng; Yulei Jiang; Cheng Yang; Jeremy Bancroft Brown; Tatjana Antic; Ila Sethi; Christine Schmid-Tannwald; Maryellen L Giger; Scott E Eggener; Aytekin Oto Journal: Radiology Date: 2013-02-07 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: James Sorace; Denise R Aberle; Dena Elimam; Silvana Lawvere; Ossama Tawfik; W Dean Wallace Journal: BMC Med Date: 2012-09-05 Impact factor: 8.775
Authors: Douglas W Strand; Daniel N Costa; Franto Francis; William A Ricke; Claus G Roehrborn Journal: Differentiation Date: 2017-08-04 Impact factor: 3.880
Authors: John Whitaker; Radhouene Neji; Nicholas Byrne; Esther Puyol-Antón; Rahul K Mukherjee; Steven E Williams; Henry Chubb; Louisa O'Neill; Orod Razeghi; Adam Connolly; Kawal Rhode; Steven Niederer; Andrew King; Cory Tschabrunn; Elad Anter; Reza Nezafat; Martin J Bishop; Mark O'Neill; Reza Razavi; Sébastien Roujol Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2019-10-10 Impact factor: 5.364
Authors: Alexandria L Irace; Anne Koivuholma; Eero Huotilainen; Jaana Hagström; Katri Aro; Mika Salmi; Antti Markkola; Heli Sistonen; Timo Atula; Antti A Mäkitie Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-01-21 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Remy Klaassen; Anne Steins; Oliver J Gurney-Champion; Maarten F Bijlsma; Geertjan van Tienhoven; Marc R W Engelbrecht; Casper H J van Eijck; Mustafa Suker; Johanna W Wilmink; Marc G Besselink; Olivier R Busch; Onno J de Boer; Marc J van de Vijver; Gerrit K J Hooijer; Joanne Verheij; Jaap Stoker; Aart J Nederveen; Hanneke W M van Laarhoven Journal: Mol Oncol Date: 2020-06-23 Impact factor: 6.603
Authors: Andrew S Mikhail; Michal Mauda-Havakuk; Ari Partanen; John W Karanian; William F Pritchard; Bradford J Wood Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-03-26 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Mireia Crispin-Ortuzar; Marcel Gehrung; Stephan Ursprung; Andrew B Gill; Anne Y Warren; Lucian Beer; Ferdia A Gallagher; Thomas J Mitchell; Iosif A Mendichovszky; Andrew N Priest; Grant D Stewart; Evis Sala; Florian Markowetz Journal: JCO Clin Cancer Inform Date: 2020-08