David R Rutkowski1,2, Shane A Wells2, Brian Johnson3, Wei Huang4, David F Jarrard5, Joshua M Lang6, Steve Cho2, Alejandro Roldán-Alzate1,2,3. 1. Mechanical Engineering, University of Wisconsin Madison, WI, United States. 2. Radiology, University of Wisconsin Madison, WI, United States. 3. Biomedical Engineering, University of Wisconsin Madison, WI, United States. 4. Pathology, University of Wisconsin Madison, WI, United States. 5. Urology, University of Wisconsin Madison, WI, United States. 6. Medicine, University of Wisconsin Madison, WI, United States.
Abstract
Purpose: MRI methods have improved diagnosis and treatment planning for prostate cancer. However, validation and standardization is needed to encourage widespread adoption of these methods. The purpose of this study was to improve validation methods by creating a prostate cutting guide and to develop a method for 3D comparison between MRI data and post-prostatectomy histological tissue slices. Methods: Prostate Specific Membrane Antigen (PSMA) Positron Emission Tomography (PET)/MRI was performed on 10 patients with prostate cancer before and after chemohormonal treatment. Post-treatment images were used to design patient-specific prostate cutting guides that were used to create uniform thickness sections of surgically removed prostates. The thickness of the prostate tissue slices matched the imaging slice thickness so that comparisons could be made between MRI results and histopathological study results. A method was also developed to compare post-slicing prostate bulk geometry with the predicted MRI prostate geometry. Results: The prostate cutting guides were used to successfully section the prostate for histopathogical evaluation and slice-by-slice MRI comparison. Surface comparison results displayed an average dimensional difference of 1.99 ± 3.19 mm between MRI and post-prostatectomy slice reconstruction prostate geometries. Conclusion: MRI-based prostate cutting guides were designed, fabricated, and implemented in a study examining the utility and accuracy of MRI for the detection of prostate cancer. Furthermore, a three-dimensional part comparison method was developed, which can be used for validation of MRI with pathological and histological data. Future work will analyze more subjects to examine the effectiveness of these guides for histopathological prostate analysis with MRI and PET/MRI.
Purpose: MRI methods have improved diagnosis and treatment planning for prostate cancer. However, validation and standardization is needed to encourage widespread adoption of these methods. The purpose of this study was to improve validation methods by creating a prostate cutting guide and to develop a method for 3D comparison between MRI data and post-prostatectomy histological tissue slices. Methods:Prostate Specific Membrane Antigen (PSMA) Positron Emission Tomography (PET)/MRI was performed on 10 patients with prostate cancer before and after chemohormonal treatment. Post-treatment images were used to design patient-specific prostate cutting guides that were used to create uniform thickness sections of surgically removed prostates. The thickness of the prostate tissue slices matched the imaging slice thickness so that comparisons could be made between MRI results and histopathological study results. A method was also developed to compare post-slicing prostate bulk geometry with the predicted MRI prostate geometry. Results: The prostate cutting guides were used to successfully section the prostate for histopathogical evaluation and slice-by-slice MRI comparison. Surface comparison results displayed an average dimensional difference of 1.99 ± 3.19 mm between MRI and post-prostatectomy slice reconstruction prostate geometries. Conclusion: MRI-based prostate cutting guides were designed, fabricated, and implemented in a study examining the utility and accuracy of MRI for the detection of prostate cancer. Furthermore, a three-dimensional part comparison method was developed, which can be used for validation of MRI with pathological and histological data. Future work will analyze more subjects to examine the effectiveness of these guides for histopathological prostate analysis with MRI and PET/MRI.
Entities:
Keywords:
3D printing; Magnetic resonance imaging; prostate cancer; prostatectomy
Authors: Simon Y Kimm; Tatum V Tarin; Jin Hyung Lee; Bob Hu; Kristin Jensen; Dwight Nishimura; James D Brooks Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2012-02-22 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Bryn Drew; Edward C Jones; Stefan Reinsberg; Andrew C Yung; S Larry Goldenberg; Piotr Kozlowski Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Vijay Shah; Thomas Pohida; Baris Turkbey; Haresh Mani; Maria Merino; Peter A Pinto; Peter Choyke; Marcelino Bernardo Journal: Rev Sci Instrum Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 1.523
Authors: R Diamand; M Oderda; W Al Hajj Obeid; S Albisinni; R Van Velthoven; G Fasolis; G Simone; M Ferriero; J-B Roche; T Piechaud; A Pastore; A Carbone; G Fiard; J-L Descotes; G Marra; P Gontero; E Altobelli; R Papalia; P Kumar; D Eldred-Evans; A Giacobbe; G Muto; V Lacetera; V Beatrici; T Roumeguere; A Peltier Journal: World J Urol Date: 2019-01-16 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Sherif Mehralivand; Joanna H Shih; Stephanie Harmon; Clayton Smith; Jonathan Bloom; Marcin Czarniecki; Samuel Gold; Graham Hale; Kareem Rayn; Maria J Merino; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey Journal: Radiology Date: 2019-01-22 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: A S N Jackson; S A Reinsberg; S A Sohaib; E M Charles-Edwards; S Jhavar; T J Christmas; A C Thompson; M J Bailey; C M Corbishley; C Fisher; M O Leach; D P Dearnaley Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2009-02 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: N Andres Parra; Hong Lu; Qian Li; Radka Stoyanova; Alan Pollack; Sanoj Punnen; Jung Choi; Mahmoud Abdalah; Christopher Lopez; Kenneth Gage; Jong Y Park; Yamoah Kosj; Julio M Pow-Sang; Robert J Gillies; Yoganand Balagurunathan Journal: Oncotarget Date: 2018-12-14
Authors: Ross A Vitek; Wei Huang; Peter G Geiger; Erika Heninger; Joshua M Lang; David F Jarrard; David J Beebe; Brian P Johnson Journal: Prostate Date: 2022-02-28 Impact factor: 4.012