9
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Correlation of Magnetic Resonance Imaging Tumor Volume with Histopathology

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Purpose

          The biology of prostate cancer may be influenced by the index lesion. The definition of index lesion volume is important for appropriate decision making, especially for image guided focal treatment. We determined the accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging for determining index tumor volume compared with volumes derived from histopathology.

          Materials and Methods

          We evaluated 135 patients (mean age 59.3 years) with a mean prostate specific antigen of 6.74 ng/dl who underwent multiparametric 3T endorectal coil magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate and subsequent radical prostatectomy. Index tumor volume was determined prospectively and independently by magnetic resonance imaging and histopathology. The ellipsoid formula was applied to determine histopathology tumor volume, whereas manual tumor segmentation was used to determine magnetic resonance tumor volume. Histopathology tumor volume was correlated with age and prostate specific antigen whereas magnetic resonance tumor volume involved Pearson correlation and linear regression methods. In addition, the predictive power of magnetic resonance tumor volume, prostate specific antigen and age for estimating histopathology tumor volume (greater than 0.5 cm 3) was assessed by ROC analysis. The same analysis was also conducted for the 1.15 shrinkage factor corrected histopathology data set.

          Results

          There was a positive correlation between histopathology tumor volume and magnetic resonance tumor volume (Pearson coefficient 0.633, p <0.0001), but a weak correlation between prostate specific antigen and histopathology tumor volume (Pearson coefficient 0.237, p=0.003). On linear regression analysis histopathology tumor volume and magnetic resonance tumor volume were correlated (r 2=0.401, p <0.00001). On ROC analysis AUC values for magnetic resonance tumor volume, prostate specific antigen and age in estimating tumors larger than 0.5 cm 3 at histopathology were 0.949 (p <0.0000001), 0.685 (p=0.001) and 0.627 (p=0.02), respectively. Similar results were found in the analysis with shrinkage factor corrected tumor volumes at histopathology.

          Conclusions

          Magnetic resonance imaging can accurately estimate index tumor volume as determined by histology. Magnetic resonance imaging has better accuracy in predicting histopathology tumor volume in tumors larger than 0.5 cm 3 than prostate specific antigen and age. Index tumor volume as determined by magnetic resonance imaging may be helpful in planning treatment, specifically in identifying tumor margins for image guided focal therapy and possibly selecting better active surveillance candidates.

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Journal
          0376374
          5331
          J Urol
          J. Urol.
          The Journal of urology
          0022-5347
          1527-3792
          4 April 2017
          15 August 2012
          October 2012
          07 June 2017
          : 188
          : 4
          : 1157-1163
          Affiliations
          Molecular Imaging Program (BT, OA, MB, DD, YLM, PLC), Laboratory of Pathology (HM, MJM) and Urologic Oncology Branch (ARR, CB, WML, PAP), National Cancer Institute, and Division of Computational Bioscience, Center for Information Technology (TP) and Center for Interventional Oncology, NCI and Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Clinical Center (BJW, PAP), National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Imaging Physics, SAIC Frederick, Inc, NCI-Frederick, Frederick (MB), Maryland, and VirtualScopics, Rochester, New York (VS)
          Author notes
          [§ ]Correspondence: Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, 10 Center Dr., MSC 1210 Bldg 10, Room 2-5940, Bethesda, Maryland 20892-1210, (telephone: 301-496-6353; FAX: 301-402-0922; pintop@ 123456mail.nih.gov )
          [*]

          Nothing to disclose.

          [†]

          Financial interest and/or other relationship with VirtualScopics.

          [‡]

          Financial interest and/or other relationship with Philips Healthcare, NIH Intramural Research Program and the NIH Center for Interventional Oncology.

          Article
          PMC5462598 PMC5462598 5462598 nihpa764599
          10.1016/j.juro.2012.06.011
          5462598
          22901591
          caf16981-4c03-4aa8-a38f-33529f7c7487
          History
          Categories
          Article

          prostatic neoplasms,magnetic resonance imaging,tumor burden

          Comments

          Comment on this article