Impact of Relative Volume Difference Between Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Three-dimensional Transrectal Ultrasound Segmentation on Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer Detection in Fusion Magnetic Resonance Imaging-targeted Biopsy

被引:0
|
作者
Lenfant, Louis [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Beitone, Clement [2 ]
Troccaz, Jocelyne [2 ]
Beaugerie, Aurelien [1 ]
Roupret, Morgan [1 ]
Seisen, Thomas [1 ]
Renard-Penna, Raphaele [4 ]
Voros, Sandrine [2 ]
Mozer, Pierre C. [1 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Sorbonne Univ, Hop Pitie Salpetriere, AP HP, Urol,GRC 5,Predict Oncourol, Paris, France
[2] Univ Grenoble Alpes, Grenoble INP, TIMC, CNRS,INSERM, Grenoble, France
[3] Sorbonne Univ, Inst Syst Intelligents & Robot ISIR, CNRS UMR 7222, INSERM U1150, Paris, France
[4] Hop La Pitie Salpetriere, AP HP, Acad Dept Radiol, Paris, France
来源
EUROPEAN UROLOGY ONCOLOGY | 2024年 / 7卷 / 03期
关键词
Prostatic neoplasm diagnostic imaging; Image-guided biopsy; Magnetic resonance imaging; Imaging; Three-dimensional methods; Volume difference; Ultrasonography methods; Prostate diagnostic imaging; Biopsy methods; MRI; ULTRASONOGRAPHY; DIAGNOSIS; SYSTEM;
D O I
10.1016/j.euo.2023.07.016
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Background: Segmentation of three-dimensional (3D) transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) images is known to be challenging, and the clinician often lacks a reliable and easy-to-use indicator to assess its accuracy during the fusion magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted prostate biopsy procedure. Objective: To assess the effect of the relative volume difference between 3D-TRUS and MRI segmentation on the outcome of a targeted biopsy. Design, setting, and participants: All adult males who underwent an MRI-targeted prostate biopsy for clinically suspected prostate cancer between February 2012 and July 2021 were consecutively included. Intervention: All patients underwent a fusion MRI-targeted prostate biopsy with a Koelis device. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Three-dimensional TRUS and MRI prostate volumes were calculated using 3D prostate models issued from the segmentations. The primary outcome was the relative segmentation volume difference (SVD) between transrectal ultrasound and MRI divided by the MRI volume (SVD = MRI volume - TRUS volume/MRI volume) and its correlation with clinically significant prostate cancer (eg, International Society of Urological Pathology [ISUP] >= 2) positiveness on targeted biopsy cores. Results and limitations: Overall, 1721 patients underwent a targeted biopsy resulting in a total of 5593 targeted cores. The median relative SVD was significantly lower in patients diagnosed with clinically significant prostate cancer than in those with ISUP 0-1: (6.7% [interquartile range {IQR} -2.7, 13.6] vs 8.0% [IQR 3.3, 16.4], p < 0.01). A multivariate regression analysis showed that a relative SVD of >10% of the MRI volume was associated with a lower detection rate of clinically significant prostate cancer (odds ratio = 0.74 [95% confidence interval: 0.55-0.98]; p = 0.038). Conclusions: A relative SVD of >10% of the MRI segmented volume was associated with a lower detection rate of clinically significant prostate cancer on targeted biopsy cores. The relative SVD can be used as a per-procedure quality indicator of 3D-TRUS segmentation. (c) 2023 Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of European Association of Urology.
引用
收藏
页码:430 / 437
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Detection of Significant Prostate Cancer Using Target Saturation in Transperineal Magnetic Resonance Imaging/Transrectal Ultrasonography-fusion Biopsy
    Tschirdewahn, Stephan
    Wiesenfarth, Manuel
    Bonekamp, David
    Puellen, Lukas
    Reis, Henning
    Panic, Andrej
    Kesch, Claudia
    Darr, Christopher
    Hess, Jochen
    Giganti, Francesco
    Moore, Caroline M.
    Guberina, Nika
    Forsting, Michael
    Wetter, Axel
    Hadaschik, Boris
    Radtke, Jan Philipp
    EUROPEAN UROLOGY FOCUS, 2021, 7 (06): : 1300 - 1307
  • [32] Accuracy of Magnetic Resonance Imaging/Ultrasound Fusion Targeted Biopsies to Diagnose Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer in Enlarged Compared to Smaller Prostates
    de Gorski, Arachk
    Roupret, Morgan
    Peyronnet, Benoit
    Le Cossec, Chloe
    Granger, Benjamin
    Comperat, Eva
    Cussenot, Olivier
    Renard-Penna, Raphaele
    Mozer, Pierre
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2015, 194 (03) : 669 - 673
  • [33] Target detection: Magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion-guided prostate biopsy
    Sonn, Geoffrey A.
    Margolis, Daniel J.
    Marks, Leonard S.
    UROLOGIC ONCOLOGY-SEMINARS AND ORIGINAL INVESTIGATIONS, 2014, 32 (06) : 903 - 911
  • [34] Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging, with or Without Magnetic Resonance Imaging-targeted Biopsy, and Systematic Biopsy for Detecting Prostate Cancer: A Cochrane Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
    Drost, Frank-Jan H.
    Osses, Daniel
    Nieboer, Daan
    Bangma, Chris H.
    Steyerberg, Ewout W.
    Roobol, Monique J.
    Schoots, Ivo G.
    EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2020, 77 (01) : 78 - 94
  • [35] Cost-effectiveness of magnetic resonance imaging and targeted fusion biopsy for early detection of prostate cancer
    Barnett, Christine L.
    Davenport, Matthew S.
    Montgomery, Jeffrey S.
    Wei, John T.
    Montie, James E.
    Denton, Brian T.
    BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2018, 122 (01) : 50 - 58
  • [36] Magnetic resonance imaging-targeted, 3D transrectal ultrasound-guided fusion biopsy for prostate cancer: Quantifying the impact of needle delivery error on diagnosis
    Martin, Peter R.
    Cool, Derek W.
    Romagnoli, Cesare
    Fenster, Aaron
    Ward, Aaron D.
    MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2014, 41 (07)
  • [37] Comparing Three Different Techniques for Magnetic Resonance Imaging-targeted Prostate Biopsies: A Systematic Review of In-bore versus Magnetic Resonance Imaging-transrectal Ultrasound fusion versus Cognitive Registration. Is There a Preferred Technique?
    Wegelin, Olivier
    van Melick, Harm H. E.
    Hooft, Lotty
    Bosch, J. L. H. Ruud
    Reitsma, Hans B.
    Barentsz, Jelle O.
    Somford, Diederik M.
    EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2017, 71 (04) : 517 - 531
  • [39] Who Can Avoid Systematic Biopsy Without Missing Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer in Men Who Undergo Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Targeted Biopsy?
    Nakanishi, Yasukazu
    Ito, Masaya
    Fukushima, Iirushi
    Yokoyama, Minato
    Kataoka, Madoka
    Ikuta, Shuzo
    Sakamoto, Kazumasa
    Takemura, Kosuke
    Suzuki, Hiroaki
    Tobisu, Ken-ichi
    Koga, Fumitaka
    CLINICAL GENITOURINARY CANCER, 2019, 17 (03) : E664 - E671
  • [40] Prostate cancer detection rate of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy. Impact of clinical indications on biopsy outcome
    Silecchia, G.
    Selvaggio, O.
    Milillo, P.
    Tewari, A.
    Stallone, G.
    Carrieri, G.
    JOURNAL OF GERONTOLOGY AND GERIATRICS, 2018, 66 (04): : 205 - 210