Automated computer-derived prostate volumes from MR imaging data: Comparison with radiologist-derived MR imaging and pathologic specimen volumes

Radiology

Volumn 262, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 144-151

  Bulman, Julie C ^a   Toth, Robert ^c   Patel, Amish D ^b   Bloch, B Nicolas ^d   McMahon, Colm J ^b   Ngo, Long ^b   Madabhushi, Anant ^c   Rofsky, Neil M ^e  

^a GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b BETH ISRAEL DEACONESS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^c RUTGERS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d BOSTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; AUTOMATION; COMPUTER ANALYSIS; COMPUTER MODEL; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORRELATION COEFFICIENT; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; IMAGE ANALYSIS; INFORMED CONSENT; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LINEAR REGRESSION ANALYSIS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; ORGAN WEIGHT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE BIOPSY; PROSTATE VOLUME; PROSTATECTOMY; RADIOLOGIST; THREE DIMENSIONAL IMAGING;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; HUMANS; LINEAR MODELS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PATTERN RECOGNITION, AUTOMATED; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; STATISTICS, NONPARAMETRIC;

EID: 84455200810     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: 15271315     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.11110266     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Blackwell KL, Bostwick DG, Myers RP, Zincke H, Oesterling JE. Combining prostate specific antigen with cancer and gland volume to predict more reliably pathological stage: the influence of prostate specific antigen cancer density. J Urol 1994;151(6):1565-1570. (Pubitemid 24151303)
2. Eskicorapci SY, Guliyev F, Akdogan B, Dogan HS, Ergen A, Ozen H. Individualization of the biopsy protocol according to the prostate gland volume for prostate cancer detection. J Urol 2005;173(5):1536-1540. (Pubitemid 40524767)
3. Raventós CX, Orsola A, de Torres I, et al. Preoperative prediction of pathologically insignificant prostate cancer in radical prostatectomy specimens: the role of prostate volume and the number of positive cores. Urol Int 2010;84(2):153-158.
4. Matthews GJ, Motta J, Fracehia JA. The accuracy of transrectal ultrasound prostate volume estimation: clinical correlations. J Clin Ultrasound 1996;24(9):501-505. (Pubitemid 26347786)
5. Al-Qaisieh B, Ash D, Bottomley DM, Carey BM. Impact of prostate volume evaluation by different observers on CT-based post-implant dosimetry. Radiother Oncol 2002;62(3):267-273. (Pubitemid 34304189)
6. Aizer AA, Anderson NS, Oh SC, et al. The impact of pretreatment prostate volume on severe acute genitourinary toxicity in prostate cancer patients treated with intensity-modulated radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2011;79(2):379-384.
7. Caso JR, Tsivian M, Mouraviev V, Polascik TJ. Predicting biopsy-proven prostate cancer recurrence following cryosurgery. Urol Oncol doi:10.1016/j.urolonc.2010.04.001. Published online September 6, 2010. Accessed December 28, 2010.
8. Stephan C, Cammann H, Meyer HA, Lein M, Jung K. PSA and new biomarkers within multivariate models to improve early detection of prostate cancer. Cancer Lett 2007;249(1):18-29. (Pubitemid 46428002)
9. Rodríguez Alonso A, González Blanco A, Barbagelata López A, et al. Importance of PSA velocity and PSA density in the prediction of prostate cancer in TURP or open prostatectomy specimen of patients with previous negative prostate biopsy [in Spanish]. Actas Urol Esp 2008;32(8):779-786.
10. Choi YJ, Kim JK, Kim HJ, Cho KS. Interobserver variability of transrectal ultrasound for prostate volume measurement according to volume and observer experience. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009;192(2):444-449.
11. Bazinet M, Karakiewicz PI, Aprikian AG, et al. Reassessment of nonplanimetric transrectal ultrasound prostate volume estimates. Urology 1996;47(6):857-862. (Pubitemid 26198912)
12. Lee JS, Chung BH. Transrectal ultrasound versus magnetic resonance imaging in the estimation of prostate volume as compared with radical prostatectomy specimens. Urol Int 2007;78(4):323-327. (Pubitemid 46725703)
13. Jeong CW, Park HK, Hong SK, Byun SS, Lee HJ, Lee SE. Comparison of prostate volume measured by transrectal ultrasonography and MRI with the actual prostate volume measured after radical prostatectomy. Urol Int 2008;81(2):179-185.
14. Sosna J, Rofsky NM, Gaston SM, DeWolf WC, Lenkinski RE. Determinations of prostate volume at 3-Tesla using an external phased array coil: comparison to pathologic specimens. Acad Radiol 2003;10(8):846-853. (Pubitemid 36993091)
15. Eri LM, Thomassen H, Brennhovd B, Håheim LL. Accuracy and repeatability of prostate volume measurements by transrectal ultrasound. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2002;5(4):273-278. (Pubitemid 36124437)
16. Kimura A, Kurooka Y, Kitamura T, Kawabe K. Biplane planimetry as a new method for prostatic volume calculation in transrectal ultrasonography. Int J Urol 1997;4(2):152-156. (Pubitemid 27182655)
17. MacMahon PJ, Kennedy AM, Murphy DT, Maher M, McNicholas MM. Modified prostate volume algorithm improves transrectal US volume estimation in men presenting for prostate brachytherapy. Radiology 2009;250(1):273-280.
18. Giubilei G, Ponchietti R, Biscioni S, et al. Accuracy of prostate volume measurements using transrectal multiplanar three-dimensional sonography. Int J Urol 2005;12(10):936-938. (Pubitemid 41741805)
19. Nunez-Nateras R, Andrews JR, Martin GL, et al. Accuracy of ultrasound in estimation of prostate weight: comparison of urologists and radiologists. Can J Urol 2010;17(1):4985-4988.
20. Toth R, Tiwari P, Rosen M, et al. A magnetic resonance spectroscopy driven initialization scheme for active shape model based prostate segmentation. Med Image Anal 2011;15(2):214-225.
21. Tiwari P, Rosen M, Madabhushi A. A hierarchical spectral clustering and nonlinear dimensionality reduction scheme for detection of prostate cancer from magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS). Med Phys 2009;36(9):3927-3939.
22. Monaco JP, Tomaszewski JE, Feldman MD, et al. High-throughput detection of prostate cancer in histological sections using probabilistic pairwise Markov models. Med Image Anal 2010;14(4):617-629.
23. Madabhushi A, Feldman MD, Metaxas DN, Tomaszeweski J, Chute D. Automated detection of prostatic adenocarcinoma from high-resolution ex vivo MRI. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2005;24(12):1611-1625. (Pubitemid 41812028)
24. Rodriguez E Jr, Skarecky D, Narula N, Ahlering TE. Prostate volume estimation using the ellipsoid formula consistently underestimates actual gland size. J Urol 2008;179(2):501-503.
25. Varma M, Morgan JM. The weight of the prostate gland is an excellent surrogate for gland volume. Histopathology 2010;57(1):55-58.
26. Ohlsén H, Ekman P, Ringertz H. Assessment of prostatic size with computed tomography: methodologic aspects. Acta Radiol Diagn (Stockh) 1982;23(3A):219-223. (Pubitemid 12034094)
27. Masterson TA, Touijer K. The role of endorectal coil MRI in preoperative staging and decision-making for the treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer. MAGMA 2008;21(6):371-377.
28. Wang L, Mullerad M, Chen HN, et al. Prostate cancer: incremental value of endorectal MR imaging findings for prediction of extracapsular extension. Radiology 2004;232(1):133-139. (Pubitemid 38787828)
29. Rosen Y, Bloch BN, Lenkinski RE, Greenman RL, Marquis RP, Rofsky NM. 3T MR of the prostate: reducing susceptibility gradients by inflating the endorectal coil with a barium sulfate suspension. Magn Reson Med 2007;57(5):898-904. (Pubitemid 46709410)
30. Cootes TF, Taylor CJ, Cooper DH, Graham J. Active shape models: their training and application. Comput Vis Image Underst 1995;61(1):38-59.
31. Toth R, Doyle S, Pungavkar S, Kalyanpur A, Madabhushi A. A boosted ensemble scheme for accurate landmark detection for active shape models. Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging: From Nano to Macro. Rotterdam, the Netherlands: IEEE, 2010;1081-1084.
32. Toth R, Bloch BN, Genega EM, et al. Accurate prostate volume estimation using multifeature active shape models on T2-weighted MRI. Acad Radiol 2011;18(6):745-754.
33. Laird NM, Ware JH. Random-effects models for longitudinal data. Biometrics 1982;38(4):963-974.
34. Milosevic M, Voruganti S, Blend R, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for localization of the prostatic apex: comparison to computed tomography (CT) and urethrography. Radiother Oncol 1998;47(3):277-284. (Pubitemid 28293649)
35. Dubois DF, Prestidge BR, Hotchkiss LA, Prete JJ, Bice WS Jr. Intraobserver and interobserver variability of MR imaging- and CT-derived prostate volumes after transperineal interstitial permanent prostate brachytherapy. Radiology 1998;207(3):785-789.
36. Heijmink SW, Scheenen TW, van Lin EN, et al. Changes in prostate shape and volume and their implications for radiotherapy after introduction of endorectal balloon as determined by MRI at 3T. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009;73(5):1446-1453.
37. Rahmouni A, Yang A, Tempany CM, et al. Accuracy of in-vivo assessment of prostatic volume by MRI and transrectal ultrasonography. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1992;16(6):935-940.