Prostate tumour volumes: Evaluation of the agreement between magnetic resonance imaging and histology using novel co-registration software

BJU International

Volumn 114, Issue 6, 2014, Pages E105-E112

  Le Nobin, Julien ^a,b   Orczyk, Clément ^a   Deng, Fang Ming ^b   Melamed, Jonathan ^b   Rusinek, Henry ^c   Taneja, Samir S ^a   Rosenkrantz, Andrew B ^c  

^a NEW YORK UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b LILLE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (France)

^c CAEN UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (France)

Author keywords

computer assisted; diffusion weighted MRI; histology; image processing; prostate cancer; tumour volume

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CANCER PROGNOSIS; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COHORT ANALYSIS; COMPUTER PROGRAM; DIFFUSION WEIGHTED IMAGING; DRUG DELIVERY DEVICE; GLEASON SCORE; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGE RECONSTRUCTION; MALE; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE SCANNER; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATECTOMY; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; THREE DIMENSIONAL IMAGING; TUMOR VOLUME; MIDDLE AGED; PATHOLOGY; PROCEDURES; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RISK ASSESSMENT; SOFTWARE;

AGED; DIFFUSION MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; HUMANS; IMAGING, THREE-DIMENSIONAL; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RISK ASSESSMENT; SOFTWARE; TUMOR BURDEN;

EID: 84920117796     PISSN: 14644096     EISSN: 1464410X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/bju.12750     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Jager GJ, Ruijter ET, van de Kaa CA, etal. Local staging of prostate cancer with endorectal MR imaging: correlation with histopathology. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1996; 166: 845-852
2. Villers A, Puech P, Mouton D, Leroy X, Ballereau C, Lemaitre L,. Dynamic contrast enhanced, pelvic phased array magnetic resonance imaging of localized prostate cancer for predicting tumor volume: correlation with radical prostatectomy findings. J Urol 2006; 176 (6 Pt 1): 2432-2437
3. Mazaheri Y, Hricak H, Fine SW, etal. Prostate tumor volume measurement with combined T2-weighted imaging and diffusion-weighted MR: correlation with pathologic tumor volume. Radiology 2009; 252: 449-457
4. Ponchietti R, Di Loro F, Fanfani A, Amorosi A,. Estimation of prostate cancer volume by endorectal coil magnetic resonance imaging vs. pathologic volume. Eur Urol 1999; 35: 32-35
5. Coakley FV, Kurhanewicz J, Lu Y, etal. Prostate cancer tumor volume: measurement with endorectal MR and MR spectroscopic imaging. Radiology 2002; 223: 91-97
6. Nakashima J, Tanimoto A, Imai Y, etal. Endorectal MRI for prediction of tumor site, tumor size, and local extension of prostate cancer. Urology 2004; 64: 101-105
7. Turkbey B, Mani H, Aras O, etal. Correlation of magnetic resonance imaging tumor volume with histopathology. J Urol 2012; 188: 1157-1163
8. 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: 846-853
9. Orczyk C, Rusinek H, Rosenkrantz AB, etal. Preliminary experience with a novel method of three-dimensional co-registration of prostate cancer digital histology and in vivo multiparametric MRI. Clin Radiol 2013; 68: e652-658
10. Hammerer P,. pT0 after radical prostatectomy: overtreatment for insignificant prostate cancer? Eur Urol 2004; 45: 35
11. Oto A, Sethi I, Karczmar G, etal. MR imaging-guided focal laser ablation for prostate cancer: phase I trial. Radiology 2013; 267: 932-940
12. Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, etal. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 2012; 22: 746-757
13. Wysock JS, Rosenkrantz AB, Huang WC, etal. A prospective, blinded comparison of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging-ultrasound fusion and visual estimation in the performance of MR-targeted prostate biopsy: the PROFUS trial. Eur Urol 2013 (in press)
14. Langer DL, van der Kwast TH, Evans AJ, etal. Intermixed normal tissue within prostate cancer: effect on MR imaging measurements of apparent diffusion coefficient and T2-sparse versus dense cancers. Radiology 2008; 249: 900-908
15. Rosenkrantz AB, Mendrinos S, Babb JS, Taneja SS,. Prostate cancer foci detected on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging are histologically distinct from those not detected. J Urol 2012; 187: 2032-2038
16. Bratan F, Niaf E, Melodelima C, etal. Influence of imaging and histological factors on prostate cancer detection and localisation on multiparametric MRI: a prospective study. Eur Radiol 2013; 23: 2019-2029
17. Verma S, Rajesh A, Morales H, etal. Assessment of aggressiveness of prostate cancer: correlation of apparent diffusion coefficient with histologic grade after radical prostatectomy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2011; 196: 374-381
18. Woodfield CA, Tung GA, Grand DJ, Pezzullo JA, Machan JT, Renzulli JF 2nd,. Diffusion-weighted MRI of peripheral zone prostate cancer: comparison of tumor apparent diffusion coefficient with Gleason score and percentage of tumor on core biopsy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010; 194: W316-322
19. Turkbey B, Shah VP, Pang Y, etal. Is apparent diffusion coefficient associated with clinical risk scores for prostate cancers that are visible on 3-T MR images? Radiology 2011; 258: 488-495
20. Hambrock T, Somford DM, Huisman HJ, etal. Relationship between apparent diffusion coefficients at 3.0-T MR imaging and Gleason grade in peripheral zone prostate cancer. Radiology 2011; 259: 453-461