Accurate Prostate Volume Estimation Using Multifeature Active Shape Models on T2-weighted MRI

Academic Radiology

Volumn 18, Issue 6, 2011, Pages 745-754

  Toth, Robert ^a   Bloch, B Nicolas ^b   Genega, Elizabeth M ^b   Rofsky, Neil M ^b   Lenkinski, Robert E ^b   Rosen, Mark A ^c   Kalyanpur, Arjun ^d   Pungavkar, Sona ^e   Madabhushi, Anant ^a  

^a RUTGERS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b BETH ISRAEL DEACONESS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^d Teleradiology Solutions Pvt Ltd India   (India)

^e Dr Balabhai Nanavate Hospital   (India)

Author keywords

Active shape models; Image processing; MRI; Prostate cancer; Prostate volume; Texture

Indexed keywords

PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN;

ACCURACY; ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; IN VIVO STUDY; MODEL; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; ORGAN SIZE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE SIZE; RADIOLOGIST; VALIDATION PROCESS;

HUMANS; IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; PATTERN RECOGNITION, AUTOMATED; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS;

EID: 79955598452     PISSN: 10766332     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2011.01.016     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Pierorazio P., Kinnaman M., Wosnitzer M., et al. Prostate volume and pathologic prostate cancer outcomes after radical prostatectomy. Urology 2007, 70:696-701.
2. Kaminski J., Hanlon A., Horwitz E., et al. Relationship between prostate volume, prostate-specific antigen nadir, and biochemical control. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2002, 5:888-892.
3. Roehrborn C., Boyle P., Bergner D., et al. Serum prostate-specific antigen and prostate volume predict long-term changes in symptoms and flow rate: results of a four-year, randomized trial comparing finasteride versus placebo. Adult Urol 1999, 54:662-670.
4. Bangma C., Niemer A., Grobbee D., et al. Transrectal ultrasonic volumetry of the prostate: in vivo comparison of different methods. Prostate 1966, 28:107-110.
5. Hoffelt S., Marshall L., Garzotto M., et al. A comparison of CT scan to transrectal ultrasound measured prostate volume in untreated prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2003, 57:29-32.
6. Eri L., Thomassen H., Brennhovd B., et al. Accuracy and repeatability of prostate volume measurements by transrectal ultrasound. Nature 2002, 5:273-278.
7. Littrup P., Williams C., Egglin T., et al. Determination of prostate volume with transrectal us for cancer screening. Part 11. Accuracy of in vitro and in vivo techniques. Radiology 1991, 52:49-53.
8. Matthews G., Motta J., Fracchia J. The accuracy of transrectal ultrasound prostate volume estimation: clinical correlations. J Clin Ultrasound 1996, 24:501-505.
9. Nathan M., Seenivasagam K., Mei Q., et al. Transrectal ultrasonography: why are estimates of prostate volume and dimension so inaccurate?. Br J Urol 1996, 77:401-407.
10. Park S., Kim J., Choi S., et al. Prostate volume measurements by TRUS using heights obtained by transaxial and midsagittal scanning: comparison with specimen volume following radical prostatectomy. Korean J Radiol 2000, 1:110-113.
11. Tewari R., Indudhara K., Shinohara E., et al. Comparison of transrectal ultrasound prostatic volume estimation with magnetic resonance imaging volume estimation and surgical specimen weight in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia. J Clin Ultrasound 1996, 24:169-174.
12. Jeong C.W., Park H.K., Hong S.K., et al. Comparison of prostate volume measured by transrectal ultrasonography and MRI with the actual prostate volume measured after radical prostatectomy. Urol Int 2008, 81:179-185.
13. Sosna J., Rofsky N., Gaston S., et al. Determinations of prostate volume at 3-tesla using an external phased array coil: comparison to pathologic specimens. Acad Radiol 2003, 10:846-853.
14. MacMahon P., Kennedy A., Murphy D., et al. Modified prostate volume algorithm improves transrectal us volume estimation in men presenting for prostate brachytherapy. Radiology 2009, 250:273-280.
15. Myschetzky P., Suburu R., Kelly B.J., et al. Determination of prostate gland volume by transrectal ultrasound: correlation with radical prostatectomy specimens. Scand J Urol Nephrol Suppl 1991, 137:107-111.
16. Bonilla J., Stoner E., Grino P., et al. Intra- and interobserver variability of MRI prostate volume measurements. Prostate 1997, 31:98-102.
17. Aarnink R., de la Rosette J., Debruyne F., et al. Reproducibility of prostate volume measurements from transrectal ultrasonography by an automated and a manual technique. Br J Urol 1996, 78:219-223.
18. Cootes T., Taylor C., Cooper D., et al. Active shape models - their training and application. Comput Vision Image Understanding 1995, 61:38-59.
19. Seghers D., Loeckx D., Maes F., et al. Minimal shape and intensity cost path segmentation. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2007, 26:1115-1129.
20. Madabhushi A., Udupa J. Interplay of inhomogeneity correction and intensity standardization in MR image analysis. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2005, 24:561-576.
21. Kirsch R. Computer determination of the constituent structure of biological images. Comp Biomed Res 1971, 4:315-328.
22. Duda R., Hart P. Pattern Classification and Scene Analysis 1973, John Wiley and Sons.
23. Everitt B., Hand D. Finite Mixture Distributions 1981, Chapman and Hall, London, UK.
24. American College of Radiology Imaging Network. MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging of prostate cancer prior to radical prostatectomy: a prospective multi-institutional clinicopathological study. Available online at: http://www.acrin.org/Portals/0/Protocols/6659/A6659partial_summary.pdf.
25. Edwards A. An Introduction to Linear Regression and Correlation. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman and Co Ltd, 1976; 33-46.
26. Ledoita O., Wolf M. A well-conditioned estimator for large-dimensional covariance matrices. J Multivariate Anal 2004, 88:365-411.
27. Mahdavi S, Morris W, Spadinger I, et al. 3d prostate segmentation in ultrasound images based on tapered and deformed ellipsoids. In: MICCAI, vol. 12, Lecture Notes Comput Sci 960-967.
28. Dice L. Measures of the amount of ecologic association between species. Ecology 1945, 263:297-302.
29. Klein S., van der Heide U., Lips I., et al. Automatic segmentation of the prostate in 3D MR images by atlas matching using localized mutual information. Med Phys 2008, 35:1407-1417.
30. Martin S., Daanen V., Troccaz J. Automated segmentation of the prostate in 3d MR images using a probabilistic atlas and a spatially constrained deformable model. Med Phys 2010, 37:1579-1590.
31. Pasquier D., Lacornerie T., Vermandel M., et al. Automatic segmentation of pelvic structures from magnetic resonance images for prostate cancer radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007, 68:592-600.
32. Makni N., Puech P., Lopes R., et al. Combining a deformable model and a probabilistic framework for an automatic 3D segmentation of prostate on MRI. Int J CARS 2009, 4:181-188.
33. Guyon I., Elisseeff A. An introduction to variable and feature selection. J Mach Learn Res 2003, 3:1157-1182.