Nicole Wake1, James S Wysock2, Marc A Bjurlin3, Hersh Chandarana4, William C Huang2. 1. Department of Radiology, Montefiore Medical Center, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY; Department of Radiology, Center for Advanced Imaging Innovation and Research (CAI2R) and Bernard and Irene Schwartz Center for Biomedical Imaging, NYU Langone Health, NYU School of Medicine, New York, NY. Electronic address: nwake@montefiore.org. 2. Division of Urologic Oncology, Department of Urology, NYU Langone Health, NYU School of Medicine, New York, NY. 3. Department of Urology, Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Multidisciplinary Genitourinary Oncology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC. 4. Department of Radiology, Center for Advanced Imaging Innovation and Research (CAI2R) and Bernard and Irene Schwartz Center for Biomedical Imaging, NYU Langone Health, NYU School of Medicine, New York, NY.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To quantify how surgeons translate 2-dimensional (2D) computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data to a 3-dimensional (3D) model and evaluate if 3D printed models improve tumor localization. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty patients with renal masses were randomly selected from our institutional review board approved prospective 3D modeling study. Three surgeons reviewed the clinically available CT or MRI data; and using computer-aided design software, translated the renal tumor to the position on the kidney that corresponded with the image interpretation. The renal tumor location determined by each surgeon was compared to the true renal mass location determined by the segmented imaging data and the Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC) was calculated to evaluate the spatial overlap accuracy. The exercise was repeated for a subset of patients with a 3D printed model. RESULTS: The mean DSC was 0.243 ± 0.236 for the entire cohort (n = 60). There was no overlap between the actual renal tumor and renal tumor identified by the surgeons in 16 of 60 cases (26.67%). Seven cases were reviewed again by 2 surgeons in a different setting with a 3D printed renal cancer model. For these cases, the DSC improved from 0.277 ± 0.248 using imaging only to 0.796 ± 0.090 with the 3D printed model (P < .01). CONCLUSION: In this study, cognitive renal tumor localization based on CT and MRI data was poor. This study demonstrates that experienced surgeons cannot always translate 2D imaging studies into 3D. Furthermore, 3D printed models can improve tumor localization and potentially assist with appropriate surgical approach.
OBJECTIVE: To quantify how surgeons translate 2-dimensional (2D) computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data to a 3-dimensional (3D) model and evaluate if 3D printed models improve tumor localization. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty patients with renal masses were randomly selected from our institutional review board approved prospective 3D modeling study. Three surgeons reviewed the clinically available CT or MRI data; and using computer-aided design software, translated the renal tumor to the position on the kidney that corresponded with the image interpretation. The renal tumor location determined by each surgeon was compared to the true renal mass location determined by the segmented imaging data and the Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC) was calculated to evaluate the spatial overlap accuracy. The exercise was repeated for a subset of patients with a 3D printed model. RESULTS: The mean DSC was 0.243 ± 0.236 for the entire cohort (n = 60). There was no overlap between the actual renal tumor and renal tumor identified by the surgeons in 16 of 60 cases (26.67%). Seven cases were reviewed again by 2 surgeons in a different setting with a 3D printed renal cancer model. For these cases, the DSC improved from 0.277 ± 0.248 using imaging only to 0.796 ± 0.090 with the 3D printed model (P < .01). CONCLUSION: In this study, cognitive renal tumor localization based on CT and MRI data was poor. This study demonstrates that experienced surgeons cannot always translate 2D imaging studies into 3D. Furthermore, 3D printed models can improve tumor localization and potentially assist with appropriate surgical approach.
Authors: Dimitris Mitsouras; Peter Liacouras; Amir Imanzadeh; Andreas A Giannopoulos; Tianrun Cai; Kanako K Kumamaru; Elizabeth George; Nicole Wake; Edward J Caterson; Bohdan Pomahac; Vincent B Ho; Gerald T Grant; Frank J Rybicki Journal: Radiographics Date: 2015 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: Archie Hughes-Hallett; Erik K Mayer; Hani J Marcus; Thomas P Cundy; Philip J Pratt; Ara W Darzi; Justin A Vale Journal: Urology Date: 2013-10-19 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Nicole Wake; Temitope Rude; Stella K Kang; Michael D Stifelman; James F Borin; Daniel K Sodickson; William C Huang; Hersh Chandarana Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2017-05
Authors: Steven Campbell; Robert G Uzzo; Mohamad E Allaf; Eric B Bass; Jeffrey A Cadeddu; Anthony Chang; Peter E Clark; Brian J Davis; Ithaar H Derweesh; Leo Giambarresi; Debra A Gervais; Susie L Hu; Brian R Lane; Bradley C Leibovich; Philip M Pierorazio Journal: J Urol Date: 2017-05-04 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Jan Ebbing; Fredrik Jäderling; Justin W Collins; Olof Akre; Stefan Carlsson; Jonas Höijer; Mats J Olsson; Peter N Wiklund Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-06-25 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Hans Veerman; Thierry N Boellaard; Jari A van der Eijk; Judith H Sluijter; Ton A Roeleveld; Tim M van der Sluis; Jakko A Nieuwenhuijzen; Esther Wit; Maarten J A van Alphen; Robert L P van Veen; André N Vis; Henk G van der Poel; Pim J van Leeuwen Journal: J Robot Surg Date: 2022-07-12
Authors: Jasper M van der Zee; Matthijs Fitski; Frank F J Simonis; Cornelis P van de Ven; Aart J Klijn; Marc H W A Wijnen; Alida F W van der Steeg Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2022-02-01 Impact factor: 3.677