Simon K B Spohn1,2, Maria Kramer1, Selina Kiefer3, Peter Bronsert3, August Sigle4, Wolfgang Schultze-Seemann4, Cordula A Jilg4, Tanja Sprave1,2, Lara Ceci1, Thomas F Fassbender5, Nils H Nicolay1,2, Juri Ruf5, Anca L Grosu1,2, Constantinos Zamboglou1,2,6. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Medical Center-University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany. 2. German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany. 3. Institute for Surgical Pathology, Medical Center-University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany. 4. Department of Urology, Medical Center-University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany. 5. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Medical Center-University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany. 6. Berta-Ottenstein-Programme, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Accurate contouring of intraprostatic gross tumor volume (GTV) is pivotal for successful delivery of focal therapies and for biopsy guidance in patients with primary prostate cancer (PCa). Contouring of GTVs, using 18-Fluor labeled tracer prostate specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography ([18F]PSMA-1007/PET) has not been examined yet. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Ten Patients with primary PCa who underwent [18F]PSMA-1007 PET followed by radical prostatectomy were prospectively enrolled. Coregistered histopathological gross tumor volume (GTV-Histo) was used as standard of reference. PSMA-PET images were contoured on two ways: (1) manual contouring with PET scaling SUVmin-max: 0-10 was performed by three teams with different levels of experience. Team 1 repeated contouring at a different time point, resulting in n = 4 manual contours. (2) Semi-automatic contouring approaches using SUVmax thresholds of 20-50% were performed. Interobserver agreement was assessed for manual contouring by calculating the Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC) and for all approaches sensitivity, specificity were calculated by dividing the prostate in each CT slice into four equal quadrants under consideration of histopathology as standard of reference. RESULTS: Manual contouring yielded an excellent interobserver agreement with a median DSC of 0.90 (range 0.87-0.94). Volumes derived from scaling SUVmin-max 0-10 showed no statistically significant difference from GTV-Histo and high sensitivities (median 87%, range 84-90%) and specificities (median 96%, range 96-100%). GTVs using semi-automatic segmentation applying a threshold of 20-40% of SUVmax showed no significant difference in absolute volumes to GTV-Histo, GTV-SUV50% was significantly smaller. Best performing semi-automatic contour (GTV-SUV20%) achieved high sensitivity (median 93%) and specificity (median 96%). There was no statistically significant difference to SUVmin-max 0-10. CONCLUSION: Manual contouring with PET scaling SUVmin-max 0-10 and semi-automatic contouring applying a threshold of 20% of SUVmax achieved high sensitivities and very high specificities and are recommended for [18F]PSMA-1007 PET based focal therapy approaches. Providing high specificities, semi-automatic approaches applying thresholds of 30-40% of SUVmax are recommend for biopsy guidance.
PURPOSE: Accurate contouring of intraprostatic gross tumor volume (GTV) is pivotal for successful delivery of focal therapies and for biopsy guidance in patients with primary prostate cancer (PCa). Contouring of GTVs, using 18-Fluor labeled tracer prostate specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography ([18F]PSMA-1007/PET) has not been examined yet. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Ten Patients with primary PCa who underwent [18F]PSMA-1007 PET followed by radical prostatectomy were prospectively enrolled. Coregistered histopathological gross tumor volume (GTV-Histo) was used as standard of reference. PSMA-PET images were contoured on two ways: (1) manual contouring with PET scaling SUVmin-max: 0-10 was performed by three teams with different levels of experience. Team 1 repeated contouring at a different time point, resulting in n = 4 manual contours. (2) Semi-automatic contouring approaches using SUVmax thresholds of 20-50% were performed. Interobserver agreement was assessed for manual contouring by calculating the Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC) and for all approaches sensitivity, specificity were calculated by dividing the prostate in each CT slice into four equal quadrants under consideration of histopathology as standard of reference. RESULTS: Manual contouring yielded an excellent interobserver agreement with a median DSC of 0.90 (range 0.87-0.94). Volumes derived from scaling SUVmin-max 0-10 showed no statistically significant difference from GTV-Histo and high sensitivities (median 87%, range 84-90%) and specificities (median 96%, range 96-100%). GTVs using semi-automatic segmentation applying a threshold of 20-40% of SUVmax showed no significant difference in absolute volumes to GTV-Histo, GTV-SUV50% was significantly smaller. Best performing semi-automatic contour (GTV-SUV20%) achieved high sensitivity (median 93%) and specificity (median 96%). There was no statistically significant difference to SUVmin-max 0-10. CONCLUSION: Manual contouring with PET scaling SUVmin-max 0-10 and semi-automatic contouring applying a threshold of 20% of SUVmax achieved high sensitivities and very high specificities and are recommended for [18F]PSMA-1007 PET based focal therapy approaches. Providing high specificities, semi-automatic approaches applying thresholds of 30-40% of SUVmax are recommend for biopsy guidance.
Authors: I Berger; C Annabattula; J Lewis; D V Shetty; J Kam; F Maclean; M Arianayagam; B Canagasingham; R Ferguson; M Khadra; R Ko; M Winter; H Loh; C Varol Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2018-06-01 Impact factor: 5.554
Authors: Peter Steenbergen; Karin Haustermans; Evelyne Lerut; Raymond Oyen; Liesbeth De Wever; Laura Van den Bergh; Linda G W Kerkmeijer; Frank A Pameijer; Wouter B Veldhuis; Jochem R N van der Voort van Zyp; Floris J Pos; Stijn W Heijmink; Robin Kalisvaart; Hendrik J Teertstra; Cuong V Dinh; Ghazaleh Ghobadi; Uulke A van der Heide Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2015-04-29 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Stephanie T H Peeters; Wilma D Heemsbergen; Peter C M Koper; Wim L J van Putten; Annerie Slot; Michel F H Dielwart; Johannes M G Bonfrer; Luca Incrocci; Joos V Lebesque Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-05-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Cédric Draulans; Robin De Roover; Uulke A van der Heide; Linda Kerkmeijer; Robert J Smeenk; Floris Pos; Wouter V Vogel; James Nagarajah; Marcel Janssen; Sofie Isebaert; Frederik Maes; Cindy Mai; Raymond Oyen; Steven Joniau; Martina Kunze-Busch; Karolien Goffin; Karin Haustermans Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2020-10-06 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: H Rhee; P Thomas; B Shepherd; S Gustafson; I Vela; P J Russell; C Nelson; E Chung; G Wood; G Malone; S Wood; P Heathcote Journal: J Urol Date: 2016-05-21 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Constantinos Zamboglou; Vanessa Drendel; Cordula A Jilg; Hans C Rischke; Teresa I Beck; Wolfgang Schultze-Seemann; Tobias Krauss; Michael Mix; Florian Schiller; Ulrich Wetterauer; Martin Werner; Mathias Langer; Michael Bock; Philipp T Meyer; Anca L Grosu Journal: Theranostics Date: 2017-01-01 Impact factor: 11.556
Authors: Michael S Hofman; Nathan Lawrentschuk; Roslyn J Francis; Colin Tang; Ian Vela; Paul Thomas; Natalie Rutherford; Jarad M Martin; Mark Frydenberg; Ramdave Shakher; Lih-Ming Wong; Kim Taubman; Sze Ting Lee; Edward Hsiao; Paul Roach; Michelle Nottage; Ian Kirkwood; Dickon Hayne; Emma Link; Petra Marusic; Anetta Matera; Alan Herschtal; Amir Iravani; Rodney J Hicks; Scott Williams; Declan G Murphy Journal: Lancet Date: 2020-03-22 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Simon K B Spohn; Viktoria Birkenmaier; Juri Ruf; Michael Mix; August Sigle; Erik Haehl; Sonja Adebahr; Tanja Sprave; Eleni Gkika; Alexander Rühle; Nils H Nicolay; Simon Kirste; Anca L Grosu; Constantinos Zamboglou Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2022-06-07 Impact factor: 5.738
Authors: Sebastian Zschaeck; Stephanie Bela Andela; Holger Amthauer; Christian Furth; Julian M Rogasch; Marcus Beck; Frank Hofheinz; Kai Huang Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2022-04-22 Impact factor: 5.738
Authors: Constantinos Zamboglou; Maria Kramer; Selina Kiefer; Peter Bronsert; Lara Ceci; August Sigle; Wolfgang Schultze-Seemann; Cordula A Jilg; Tanja Sprave; Thomas F Fassbender; Nils H Nicolay; Juri Ruf; Matthias Benndorf; Anca L Grosu; Simon K B Spohn Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-03-12 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Christopher W Smith; Ryan Alfano; Douglas Hoover; Kathleen Surry; David D'Souza; Jonathan Thiessen; Irina Rachinsky; John Butler; Jose A Gomez; Mena Gaed; Madeleine Moussa; Joseph Chin; Stephen Pautler; Glenn S Bauman; Aaron D Ward Journal: Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol Date: 2021-07-30
Authors: Wei Liu; Andrew Loblaw; David Laidley; Hatim Fakir; Lucas Mendez; Melanie Davidson; Zahra Kassam; Ting-Yim Lee; Aaron Ward; Jonathan Thiessen; Jane Bayani; John Conyngham; Laura Bailey; Joseph D Andrews; Glenn Bauman Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2022-04-13 Impact factor: 5.738
Authors: Lena M Mittlmeier; Matthias Brendel; Leonie Beyer; Nathalie L Albert; Andrei Todica; Mathias J Zacherl; Vera Wenter; Annika Herlemann; Alexander Kretschmer; Stephan T Ledderose; Nina-Sophie Schmidt-Hegemann; Wolfgang G Kunz; Jens Ricke; Peter Bartenstein; Harun Ilhan; Marcus Unterrainer Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2021-05-21 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Simon K B Spohn; Ilias Sachpazidis; Rolf Wiehle; Benedikt Thomann; August Sigle; Peter Bronsert; Juri Ruf; Matthias Benndorf; Nils H Nicolay; Tanja Sprave; Anca L Grosu; Dimos Baltas; Constantinos Zamboglou Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2021-05-14 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Simon K B Spohn; Alisa S Bettermann; Fabian Bamberg; Matthias Benndorf; Michael Mix; Nils H Nicolay; Tobias Fechter; Tobias Hölscher; Radu Grosu; Arturo Chiti; Anca L Grosu; Constantinos Zamboglou Journal: Theranostics Date: 2021-07-06 Impact factor: 11.556