Dataset Information

Role of endorectal MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging in defining treatable intraprostatic tumor foci in prostate cancer: quantitative analysis of imaging contour compared to whole-mount histopathology.

ABSTRACT: To investigate the role of endorectal MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging in defining the contour of treatable intraprostatic tumor foci in prostate cancer, since targeted therapy requires accurate target volume definition.We retrospectively identified 20 patients with prostate cancer who underwent endorectal MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging prior to radical prostatectomy and subsequent creation of detailed histopathological tumor maps from whole-mount step sections. Two experienced radiologists independently reviewed all MR images and electronically contoured all suspected treatable (?0.5 cm(3)) tumor foci. Deformable co-registration in MATLAB was used to calculate the margin of error between imaging and histopathological contours at both capsular and non-capsular surfaces and the treatment margin required to ensure at least 95% tumor coverage.Histopathology showed 17 treatable tumor foci in 16 patients, of which 8 were correctly identified by both readers and an additional 2 were correctly identified by reader 2. For all correctly identified lesions, both readers accurately identified that tumor contacted the prostatic capsule, with no error in contour identification. On the non-capsular border, the median distance between the imaging and histopathological contour was 1.4mm (range, 0-12). Expanding the contour by 5mm at the non-capsular margin included 95% of tumor volume not initially covered within the MR contour.Endorectal MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging can be used to accurately contour treatable intraprostatic tumor foci; adequate tumor coverage is achieved by expanding the treatment contour at the non-capsular margin by 5mm.

SUBMITTER: Anwar M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3969841 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Role of endorectal MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging in defining treatable intraprostatic tumor foci in prostate cancer: quantitative analysis of imaging contour compared to whole-mount histopathology.

Anwar Mekhail M Westphalen Antonio C AC Jung Adam J AJ Noworolski Susan M SM Simko Jeffry P JP Kurhanewicz John J Roach Mack M Carroll Peter R PR Coakley Fergus V FV

Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology 20140117 2

<h4>Purpose</h4>To investigate the role of endorectal MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging in defining the contour of treatable intraprostatic tumor foci in prostate cancer, since targeted therapy requires accurate target volume definition.<h4>Materials and methods</h4>We retrospectively identified 20 patients with prostate cancer who underwent endorectal MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging prior to radical prostatectomy and subsequent creation of detailed histopathological tumor maps fro ...[more]

PMID: 24444524

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) plays an important role in the diagnosis of prostate cancer (PCa) in the current clinical setting. However, the performance of mpMRI usually varies based on the experience of the radiologists at different levels; thus, the demand for MRI interpretation warrants further analysis. In this study, we developed a deep learning (DL) model to improve PCa diagnostic ability using mpMRI and whole-mount histopathology data. Methods: A total of 739 patients, including 466 with PCa and 273 without PCa, were enrolled from January 2017 to December 2019. The mpMRI (T2 weighted imaging, diffusion weighted imaging, and apparent diffusion coefficient sequences) data were randomly divided into training (n = 659) and validation datasets (n = 80). According to the whole-mount histopathology, a DL model, including independent segmentation and classification networks, was developed to extract the gland and PCa area for PCa diagnosis. The area under the curve (AUC) were used to evaluate the performance of the prostate classification networks. The proposed DL model was subsequently used in clinical practice (independent test dataset; n = 200), and the PCa detective/diagnostic performance between the DL model and different level radiologists was evaluated based on the sensitivity, specificity, precision, and accuracy. Results: The AUC of the prostate classification network was 0.871 in the validation dataset, and it reached 0.797 using the DL model in the test dataset. Furthermore, the sensitivity, specificity, precision, and accuracy of the DL model for diagnosing PCa in the test dataset were 0.710, 0.690, 0.696, and 0.700, respectively. For the junior radiologist without and with DL model assistance, these values were 0.590, 0.700, 0.663, and 0.645 versus 0.790, 0.720, 0.738, and 0.755, respectively. For the senior radiologist, the values were 0.690, 0.770, 0.750, and 0.730 vs. 0.810, 0.840, 0.835, and 0.825, respectively. The diagnosis made with DL model assistance for radiologists were significantly higher than those without assistance (P < 0.05). Conclusion: The diagnostic performance of DL model is higher than that of junior radiologists and can improve PCa diagnostic accuracy in both junior and senior radiologists.

Project description:To determine the role that magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging findings obtained at the time of diagnosis play in the progression of disease in patients whose prostate cancer is being managed with active surveillance and to compare the role of these findings with the role of transrectal ultrasonography (US) findings.The institutional review board approved this HIPAA-compliant retrospective study, and informed consent was obtained from all patients whose records were to be entered into the research database. All patients who had prostate cancer managed with active surveillance and who had undergone both MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging of the prostate and transrectal US at time of diagnosis were identified. Two urologists blinded to the clinical outcome in these patients independently reviewed and dichotomized the MR imaging report and the MR spectroscopic imaging report as normal or suggestive of malignancy. One experienced urologist performed all US examinations that were then dichotomized similarly. Uni- and multivariate (with use of standard clinical variables) Cox models were fitted to assess time to cancer progression, defined as Gleason score upgrading, prostate-specific antigen velocity of more than 0.75 (microg x L(-1))/y, or initiation of treatment more than 6 months after diagnosis.The final cohort included 114 patients with a median follow-up of 59 months. Patients with a lesion that was suggestive of cancer at MR imaging had a greater risk of the Gleason score being upgraded at subsequent biopsy (hazard ratio, 4.0; 95% confidence interval: 1.1, 14.9) than did patients without such a lesion. Neither MR spectroscopic imaging nor transrectal US could be used to predict cancer progression.Abnormal prostate MR imaging results suggestive of cancer may confer an increased risk of Gleason score upgrade at subsequent biopsy. Although expensive, prostate MR imaging may help in counseling potential candidates about active surveillance.

Dataset Information

Role of endorectal MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging in defining treatable intraprostatic tumor foci in prostate cancer: quantitative analysis of imaging contour compared to whole-mount histopathology.

Publications

Role of endorectal MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging in defining treatable intraprostatic tumor foci in prostate cancer: quantitative analysis of imaging contour compared to whole-mount histopathology.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets