The role of pathology correlation approach in prostate cancer index lesion detection and quantitative analysis with multiparametric MRI

Academic Radiology

Volumn 22, Issue 5, 2015, Pages 548-555

  Fedorov, Andriy ^a   Penzkofer, Tobias ^a,b   Hirsch, Michelle S ^a   Flood, Trevor A ^a   Vangel, Mark G ^c   Masry, Paul ^a   Tempany, Clare M ^a   Mulkern, Robert V ^d   Fennessy, Fiona M ^a,e  

^a BRIGHAM AND WOMEN S HOSPITAL   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL RWTH AACHEN   (Germany)

^c MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL   (United States)

^d BOSTON CHILDREN S HOSPITAL   (United States)

^e DANA FARBER CANCER INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

Magnetic resonance imaging; Pathology correlation; Prostate cancer; Quantitative imaging

Indexed keywords

GADOLINIUM PENTETATE MEGLUMINE; CONTRAST MEDIUM; GADOLINIUM PENTETATE; PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER LOCALIZATION; CANCER PATIENT; CANCER SIZE; CANCER SURGERY; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; CORRELATIONAL STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; DIFFUSION COEFFICIENT; DIFFUSION WEIGHTED IMAGING; GENERAL PATHOLOGICAL PARAMETERS; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE SCANNER; ONCOLOGICAL PARAMETERS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATECTOMY; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; REFERENCE VALUE; STANDARD; SURGICAL PATHOLOGY REPORT; WHOLE MOUNT PATHOLOGY; BIOPSY; BLOOD; CANCER GRADING; PATHOLOGY; PROCEDURES; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; TUMOR VOLUME;

AGED; BIOPSY; CONTRAST MEDIA; DIFFUSION MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; GADOLINIUM DTPA; HUMANS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM GRADING; PROSTATE-SPECIFIC ANTIGEN; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; TUMOR BURDEN;

EID: 84926994328     PISSN: 10766332     EISSN: 18784046     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2014.12.022     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Hegde J.V., Mulkern R.V., Panych L.P., et al. Multiparametric MRI of prostate cancer: an update on state-of-the-art techniques and their performance in detecting and localizing prostate cancer. J Magn Reson Imaging 2013, 37(5):1035-1054.
2. Dickinson L., Ahmed H.U., Allen C., et al. Magnetic resonance imaging for the detection, localisation, and characterisation of prostate cancer: recommendations from a European consensus meeting. Eur Urol 2011, 59(4):477-494.
3. Barentsz J.O., Richenberg J., Clements R., et al. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 2012, 22(4):746-757.
4. Stamatakis L., Siddiqui M.M., Nix J.W., et al. Accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in confirming eligibility for active surveillance for men with prostate cancer. Cancer 2013, 1-8.
5. Arumainayagam N., Ahmed H.U., Moore C.M., et al. Multiparametric MR imaging for detection of clinically significant prostate cancer: a validation cohort study with transperineal template prostate mapping as the reference standard. Radiology 2013, 268(3):761-769.
6. Heidenreich A., Bellmunt J., Bolla M., et al. EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part I: screening, diagnosis, and treatment of clinically localised disease. Eur Urol 2011, 59(1):61-71.
7. Turkbey B., Mani H., Shah V., et al. Multiparametric 3T prostate magnetic resonance imaging to detect cancer: histopathological correlation using prostatectomy specimens processed in customized magnetic resonance imaging based molds. J Urol 2011, 186(5):1818-1824.
8. Langer D.L., van der Kwast T.H., Evans A.J., et al. Prostate tissue composition and MR measurements: investigating the relationships between ADC, T2, K(trans), v(e), and corresponding histologic features. Radiology 2010, 255(2):485-494.
9. Turkbey B., Mani H., Aras O., et al. Correlation of magnetic resonance imaging tumor volume with histopathology. J Urol 2012, 188(4):1157-1163.
10. Mazaheri Y., Hricak H., Fine S.W., et al. Prostate tumor volume measurement with combined T2-weighted imaging and diffusion-weighted MR: correlation with pathologic tumor volume. Radiology 2009, 252(2):449-457.
11. Fennessy F.M., Fedorov A., Gupta S.N., et al. Practical considerations in T1 mapping of prostate for dynamic contrast enhancement pharmacokinetic analyses. Magn Reson Imaging 2012, 30(9):1224-1233.
12. Tofts P.S., Brix G., Buckley D.L., et al. Estimating kinetic parameters from contrast-enhanced T1-weighted MRI of a diffusable tracer: standardized quantities and symbols. J Magn Reson Imaging 1999, 10(3):223-232.
13. De Bazelaire C.M.J., Duhamel G.D., Rofsky N.M., et al. MR imaging relaxation times of abdominal and pelvic tissues measured invivo at 3.0 T: preliminary results. Radiology 2004, 230(3):652-659.
14. Carr J.C., Carroll T.J. Magnetic resonance angiography: principles and applications 2011, Springer.
15. Fritz-Hansen T., Rostrup E., Larsson H.B., et al. Measurement of the arterial concentration of Gd-DTPA using MRI: a step toward quantitative perfusion imaging. Magn Reson Med 1996, 36(2):225-231.
16. Weinmann H.J., Laniado M., Mützel W. Pharmacokinetics of GdDTPA/dimeglumine after intravenous injection into healthy volunteers. Physiol Chem Phys Med NMR 1984, 16(2):167-172.
17. Priest A.N., Gill A.B., Kataoka M., et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in ovarian cancer: initial experience at 3 tesla in primary and metastatic disease. Magn Reson Med 2010, 63(4):1044-1049.
18. Trivedi H., Turkbey B., Rastinehad A.R., et al. Use of patient-specific MRI-based prostate mold for validation of multiparametric MRI in localization of prostate cancer. Urology 2012, 79(1):233-239.
19. Fedorov A., Beichel R., Kalpathy-Cramer J., et al. 3D Slicer as an image computing platform for the Quantitative Imaging Network. Magn Reson Imaging 2012, 30(9):1323-1341.
20. Jonmarker S., Valdman A., Lindberg A., et al. Tissue shrinkage after fixation with formalin injection of prostatectomy specimens. Virchows Arch 2006, 449(3):297-301.
21. Wolters T., Roobol M.J., van Leeuwen P.J., et al. A critical analysis of the tumor volume threshold for clinically insignificant prostate cancer using a data set of a randomized screening trial. J Urol 2011, 185(1):121-125.
22. Stamey T.A., Freiha F.S., McNeal J.E., et al. Localized prostate cancer. Relationship of tumor volume to clinical significance for treatment of prostate cancer. Cancer 1993, 71(3 Suppl):933-938.
23. Zou K.H., Warfield S.K., Bharatha A., et al. Statistical validation of image segmentation quality based on a spatial overlap index. Acad Radiol 2004, 11(2):178-189.
24. Wang L., Mazaheri Y., Zhang J., et al. Assessment of biologic aggressiveness of prostate cancer: correlation of MR signal intensity with Gleason grade after radical prostatectomy. Radiology 2008, 246(1):168-176.
25. Wang X.Z., Wang B., Gao Z.Q., et al. Diffusion-weighted imaging of prostate cancer: correlation between apparent diffusion coefficient values and tumor proliferation. J Magn Reson Imaging 2009, 29(6):1360-1366.
26. Zelhof B., Lowry M., Rodrigues G., et al. Description of magnetic resonance imaging-derived enhancement variables in pathologically confirmed prostate cancer and normal peripheral zone regions. BJU Int 2009, 104(5):621-627.
27. Ren J., Huan Y., Wang H., et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI of benign prostatic hyperplasia and prostatic carcinoma: correlation with angiogenesis. Clin Radiol 2008, 63(2):153-159.
28. Rud E., Klotz D., Rennesund K., et al. Detection of the index tumor and tumor volume in prostate cancer using T2W and DW MRI alone. BJU Int 2014, 114:E32-E42.
29. Le Nobin J., Orczyk C., Deng F.-M., et al. Prostate tumor volumes: agreement between MRI and histology using novel co-registration software. BJU Int 2014, 114:E105-E112.
30. Cornud F., Khoury G., Bouazza N., et al. Tumor target volume for focal therapy of prostate cancer-does multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging allow for a reliable estimation?. J Urol 2014, 191(5):1272-1279.
31. Ward A.D., Crukley C., McKenzie C.A., et al. Prostate: registration of digital histopathologic images to invivo MR images acquired by using endorectal receive coil. Radiology 2012, 263(3):856-864.
32. Meyer C., Ma B., Kunju L.P., et al. Challenges in accurate registration of 3-D medical imaging and histopathology in primary prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2013, 40(Suppl 1):S72-S78.
33. Hollenbeck B.K., Bassily N., Wei J.T., et al. Whole mounted radical prostatectomy specimens do not increase detection of adverse pathological features. J Urol 2000, 164(5):1583-1586.
34. Noguchi M., Stamey T.A., McNeal J.E., et al. Prognostic factors for multifocal prostate cancer in radical prostatectomy specimens: lack of significance of secondary cancers. J Urol 2003, 170(2 Pt 1):459-463.
35. Wise A.M., Stamey T.A., McNeal J.E., et al. Morphologic and clinical significance of multifocal prostate cancers in radical prostatectomy specimens. Urology 2002, 60(2):264-269.
36. Kozlowski P., Chang S.D., Jones E.C., et al. Combined diffusion-weighted and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI for prostate cancer diagnosis-correlation with biopsy and histopathology. J Magn Reson Imaging 2006, 24(1):108-113.
37. Epstein J.I., Walsh P.C., Sauvageot J., et al. Use of repeat sextant and transition zone biopsies for assessing extent of prostate cancer. J Urol 1997, 158(5):1886-1890.
38. Stroumbakis N., Cookson M.S., Reuter V.E., et al. Clinical significance of repeat sextant biopsies in prostate cancer patients. Urology 1997, 49(3A Suppl):113-118.
39. Svetec D., McCabe K., Peretsman S., et al. Prostate rebiopsy is a poor surrogate of treatment efficacy in localized prostate cancer. J Urol 1998, 159(5):1606-1608.