Dataset Information

Comparison of magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound (MRI-US) fusion-guided prostate biopsies obtained from axial and sagittal approaches.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To compare cancer detection rates and concordance between magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound (MRI-US) fusion-guided prostate biopsy cores obtained from axial and sagittal approaches.

Patients and methods

Institutional records of MRI-US fusion-guided biopsy were reviewed. Detection rates for all cancers, Gleason ?3 + 4 cancers, and Gleason ?4 + 3 cancers were computed. Agreement between axial and sagittal cores for cancer detection, and frequency where one was upgraded the other was computed on a per-target and per-patient basis.

Results

In all, 893 encounters from 791 patients that underwent MRI-US fusion-guided biopsy in 2007-2013 were reviewed, yielding 4688 biopsy cores from 2344 targets for analysis. The mean age and PSA level at each encounter was 61.8 years and 9.7?ng/mL (median 6.45?ng/mL). Detection rates for all cancers, ?3 + 4 cancers, and ?4 + 3 cancers were 25.9%, 17.2%, and 8.1% for axial cores, and 26.1%, 17.6%, and 8.6% for sagittal cores. Per-target agreement was 88.6%, 93.0%, and 96.5%, respectively. On a per-target basis, the rates at which one core upgraded or detected a cancer missed on the other were 8.3% and 8.6% for axial and sagittal cores, respectively. Even with the inclusion of systematic biopsies, omission of axial or sagittal cores would have resulted in missed detection or under-characterisation of cancer in 4.7% or 5.2% of patients, respectively.

Conclusion

Cancer detection rates, Gleason scores, and core involvement from axial and sagittal cores are similar, but significant cancer may be missed if only one core is obtained for each target. Discordance between axial and sagittal cores is greatest in intermediate-risk scenarios, where obtaining multiple cores may improve tissue characterisation.

SUBMITTER: Hong CW

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6330106 | biostudies-literature | 2015 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison of magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound (MRI-US) fusion-guided prostate biopsies obtained from axial and sagittal approaches.

Hong Cheng W CW Rais-Bahrami Soroush S Walton-Diaz Annerleim A Shakir Nabeel N Su Daniel D George Arvin K AK Merino Maria J MJ Turkbey Baris B Choyke Peter L PL Wood Bradford J BJ Pinto Peter A PA

BJU international 20141215 5

<h4>Objective</h4>To compare cancer detection rates and concordance between magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound (MRI-US) fusion-guided prostate biopsy cores obtained from axial and sagittal approaches.<h4>Patients and methods</h4>Institutional records of MRI-US fusion-guided biopsy were reviewed. Detection rates for all cancers, Gleason ≥3 + 4 cancers, and Gleason ≥4 + 3 cancers were computed. Agreement between axial and sagittal cores for cancer detection, and frequency where one was upgr ...[more]

PMID: 25045781

Similar Datasets

Project description:Registration and fusion of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) of the prostate can provide guidance for prostate brachytherapy. However, accurate registration remains a challenging task due to the lack of ground truth regarding voxel-level spatial correspondence, limited field of view, low contrast-to-noise ratio, and signal-to-noise ratio in TRUS. In this study, we proposed a fully automated deep learning approach based on a weakly supervised method to address these issues. We employed deep learning techniques to combine image segmentation and registration, including affine and nonrigid registration, to perform an automated deformable MRI-TRUS registration. To start with, we trained two separate fully convolutional neural networks (CNNs) to perform a pixel-wise prediction for MRI and TRUS prostate segmentation. Then, to provide the initialization of the registration, a 2D CNN was used to register MRI-TRUS prostate images using an affine registration. After that, a 3D UNET-like network was applied for nonrigid registration. For both the affine and nonrigid registration, pairs of MRI-TRUS labels were concatenated and fed into the neural networks for training. Due to the unavailability of ground-truth voxel-level correspondences and the lack of accurate intensity-based image similarity measures, we propose to use prostate label-derived volume overlaps and surface agreements as an optimization objective function for weakly supervised network training. Specifically, we proposed a hybrid loss function that integrated a Dice loss, a surface-based loss, and a bending energy regularization loss for the nonrigid registration. The Dice and surface-based losses were used to encourage the alignment of the prostate label between the MRI and the TRUS. The bending energy regularization loss was used to achieve a smooth deformation field. Thirty-six sets of patient data were used to test our registration method. The image registration results showed that the deformed MR image aligned well with the TRUS image, as judged by corresponding cysts and calcifications in the prostate. The quantitative results showed that our method produced a mean target registration error (TRE) of 2.53 ± 1.39 mm and a mean Dice loss of 0.91 ± 0.02. The mean surface distance (MSD) and Hausdorff distance (HD) between the registered MR prostate shape and TRUS prostate shape were 0.88 and 4.41 mm, respectively. This work presents a deep learning-based, weakly supervised network for accurate MRI-TRUS image registration. Our proposed method has achieved promising registration performance in terms of Dice loss, TRE, MSD, and HD.

Project description:PurposeGiven the limitations of prostate specific antigen and standard biopsies for detecting prostate cancer, we evaluated the cancer detection rate and external validity of a magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion guided prostate biopsy system used at the National Institutes of Health.Materials and methodsWe performed a phase III trial of a magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion guided prostate biopsy system with participants enrolled between 2012 and 2013. A total of 153 men consented to the study and underwent 3 Tesla multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging with an endorectal coil for clinical suspicion of prostate cancer. Lesions were classified as low or moderate/high risk for prostate cancer. Magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion guided biopsy and standard 12-core prostate biopsy were performed and 105 men were eligible for analysis.ResultsMean patient age was 65.8 years and mean prostate specific antigen was 9.5 ng/ml. The overall cancer detection rate was 62.9% (66 of 105 patients). The cancer detection rate in those with moderate/high risk on imaging was 72.3% (47 of 65) vs 47.5% (19 of 40) in those classified as low risk for prostate cancer (p<0.05). Mean tumor core length was 4.6 and 3.7 mm for fusion biopsy and standard 12-core biopsy, respectively (p<0.05). Magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion guided biopsy detected prostate cancer that was missed by standard 12-core biopsy in 14.3% of cases (15 of 105), of which 86.7% (13 of 15) were clinically significant. This biopsy upgraded 23.5% of cancers (4 of 17) deemed clinically insignificant on 12-core biopsy to clinically significant prostate cancer necessitating treatment.ConclusionsMagnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion guided biopsy can improve prostate cancer detection. The results of this trial support the external validity of this platform and may be the next step in the evolution of prostate cancer management.

Project description:IntroductionMultiple scoring systems have been proposed for prostate MRI reporting. We sought to review the clinical impact of the new Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System v2 (PI-RADS) and compare those results to our proposed Simplified Qualitative System (SQS) score with respect to detection of prostate cancers and clinically significant prostate cancers.MethodsAll patients who underwent multiparametric prostate MRI (mpMRI) had their images interpreted using PI-RADS v1 and SQS score. PI-RADS v2 was calculated from prospectively collected data points. Patients with positive mpMRIs were then referred by their urologists for enrollment in an IRB-approved prospective phase III trial of mpMRI-Ultrasound (MR/TRUS) fusion biopsy of suspicious lesions. Standard 12-core biopsy was performed at the same setting. Clinical data were collected prospectively.Results1060 patients were imaged using mpMRI at our institution during the study period. 341 participants were then referred to the trial. 312 participants underwent MR/TRUS fusion biopsy of 452 lesions and were included in the analysis. 202 participants had biopsy-proven cancer (64.7%) and 206 (45.6%) lesions were positive for cancer. Distribution of cancer detected at each score produced a Gaussian distribution for SQS while PI-RADS demonstrates a negatively skewed curve with 82.1% of cases being scored as a 4 or 5. Patient-level data demonstrated AUC of 0.702 (95% CI 0.65 to 0.73) for PI-RADS and 0.762 (95% CI 0.72 to 0.81) for SQS (p< 0.0001) with respect to the detection of prostate cancer. The analysis for clinically significant prostate cancer at a per lesion level resulted in an AUC of 0.725 (95% CI 0.69 to 0.76) and 0.829 (95% CI 0.79 to 0.87) for the PI-RADS and SQS score, respectively (p< 0.0001).ConclusionsmpMRI is a useful tool in the workup of patients at risk for prostate cancer, and serves as a platform to guide further evaluation with MR/TRUS fusion biopsy. SQS score provided a more normal distribution of scores and yielded a higher AUC than PI-RADS v2. However until our findings are validated, we recommend reporting of detailed sequence-specific findings. This will allow for prospectively collected data to be utilized in determining the impact of ongoing changes to these scoring systems as our understanding of mpMRI interpretation evolves.

Dataset Information

Comparison of magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound (MRI-US) fusion-guided prostate biopsies obtained from axial and sagittal approaches.

Objective

Patients and methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Comparison of magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound (MRI-US) fusion-guided prostate biopsies obtained from axial and sagittal approaches.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure