Skip to main content
Top
Published in: European Radiology 5/2013

01-05-2013 | Urogenital

Simulated required accuracy of image registration tools for targeting high-grade cancer components with prostate biopsies

Authors: Wendy J. M. van de Ven, Christina A. Hulsbergen–van de Kaa, Thomas Hambrock, Jelle O. Barentsz, Henkjan J. Huisman

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 5/2013

Login to get access

Abstract

Objectives

To estimate the required spatial alignment accuracy for correctly grading 95 % of peripheral zone (PZ) prostate cancers using a system for multiparametric magnetic resonance (MR)-guided ultrasound (US) biopsies.

Methods

PZ prostate tumours were retrospectively annotated on multiparametric MR series using prostatectomy specimens as reference standard. Tumours were grouped based on homogeneous and heterogeneous apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values using an automated ADC texture analysis method. The proportion of heterogeneous tumours containing a distinct, high Gleason grade tumour focus yielding low ADC values was determined. Both overall tumour and high-grade focal volumes were calculated. All high-grade target volumes were then used in a simulated US biopsy system with adjustable accuracy to determine the hit rate.

Results

An ADC-determined high-grade tumour focus was found in 63 % of the PZ prostate tumours. The focal volumes were significantly smaller than the total tumour volumes (median volume of 0.3 ml and 1.1 ml respectively). To correctly grade 95 % of the aggressive tumour components the target registration error (TRE) should be smaller than 1.9 mm.

Conclusions

To enable finding the high Gleason grade component in 95 % of PZ prostate tumours with MR-guided US biopsies, a technical registration accuracy of 1.9 mm is required.

Key Points

MRI can identify foci of prostatic cancer with reduced apparent diffusion coefficients
Sixty-three per cent of prostatic peripheral zone tumours contain high-grade tumour low ADC foci
The median volume of such foci is 0.3 ml
Biopsy targets are significantly smaller than whole tumour volumes
Simulated registration accuracy is 1.9 mm for correctly grading 95 % of tumours
Literature
1.
go back to reference Jemal A, Bray F, Center MM, Ferlay J, Ward E, Forman D (2011) Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin 61:69–90PubMedCrossRef Jemal A, Bray F, Center MM, Ferlay J, Ward E, Forman D (2011) Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin 61:69–90PubMedCrossRef
2.
go back to reference Roehl KA, Antenor JAV, Catalona WJ (2002) Serial biopsy results in prostate cancer screening study. J Urol 167:2435–2439PubMedCrossRef Roehl KA, Antenor JAV, Catalona WJ (2002) Serial biopsy results in prostate cancer screening study. J Urol 167:2435–2439PubMedCrossRef
3.
go back to reference Kvåle R, Møller B, Wahlqvist R et al (2009) Concordance between Gleason scores of needle biopsies and radical prostatectomy specimens: a population-based study. BJU Int 103:1647–1654PubMedCrossRef Kvåle R, Møller B, Wahlqvist R et al (2009) Concordance between Gleason scores of needle biopsies and radical prostatectomy specimens: a population-based study. BJU Int 103:1647–1654PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference Rajinikanth A, Manoharan M, Soloway CT, Civantos FJ, Soloway MS (2008) Trends in Gleason score: concordance between biopsy and prostatectomy over 15 years. Urology 72:177–182PubMedCrossRef Rajinikanth A, Manoharan M, Soloway CT, Civantos FJ, Soloway MS (2008) Trends in Gleason score: concordance between biopsy and prostatectomy over 15 years. Urology 72:177–182PubMedCrossRef
5.
go back to reference Hambrock T, Hoeks C, Hulsbergen-van de Kaa C et al (2012) Prospective assessment of prostate cancer aggressiveness using 3-T diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging-guided biopsies versus a systematic 10-core transrectal ultrasound prostate biopsy cohort. Eur Urol 61:177–184PubMedCrossRef Hambrock T, Hoeks C, Hulsbergen-van de Kaa C et al (2012) Prospective assessment of prostate cancer aggressiveness using 3-T diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging-guided biopsies versus a systematic 10-core transrectal ultrasound prostate biopsy cohort. Eur Urol 61:177–184PubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference Fütterer JJ, Heijmink SWTPJ, Scheenen TWJ et al (2006) Prostate cancer localization with dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging and proton MR spectroscopic imaging. Radiology 241:449–458PubMedCrossRef Fütterer JJ, Heijmink SWTPJ, Scheenen TWJ et al (2006) Prostate cancer localization with dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging and proton MR spectroscopic imaging. Radiology 241:449–458PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Kitajima K, Kaji Y, Fukabori Y, Yoshida K, Suganuma N, Sugimura K (2010) Prostate cancer detection with 3T MRI: comparison of diffusion-weighted imaging and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in combination with T2-weighted imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 31:625–631PubMedCrossRef Kitajima K, Kaji Y, Fukabori Y, Yoshida K, Suganuma N, Sugimura K (2010) Prostate cancer detection with 3T MRI: comparison of diffusion-weighted imaging and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in combination with T2-weighted imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 31:625–631PubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Tanimoto A, Nakashima J, Kohno H, Shinmoto H, Kuribayashi S (2007) Prostate cancer screening: the clinical value of diffusion-weighted imaging and dynamic MR imaging in combination with T2-weighted imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 25:146–152PubMedCrossRef Tanimoto A, Nakashima J, Kohno H, Shinmoto H, Kuribayashi S (2007) Prostate cancer screening: the clinical value of diffusion-weighted imaging and dynamic MR imaging in combination with T2-weighted imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 25:146–152PubMedCrossRef
9.
go back to reference Hambrock T, Somford DM, Hoeks C et al (2010) Magnetic resonance imaging guided prostate biopsy in men with repeat negative biopsies and increased prostate specific antigen. J Urol 183:520–527PubMedCrossRef Hambrock T, Somford DM, Hoeks C et al (2010) Magnetic resonance imaging guided prostate biopsy in men with repeat negative biopsies and increased prostate specific antigen. J Urol 183:520–527PubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference deSouza NM, Riches SF, Vanas NJ et al (2008) Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging: a potential non-invasive marker of tumour aggressiveness in localized prostate cancer. Clin Radiol 63:774–782PubMedCrossRef deSouza NM, Riches SF, Vanas NJ et al (2008) Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging: a potential non-invasive marker of tumour aggressiveness in localized prostate cancer. Clin Radiol 63:774–782PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Hambrock T, Somford DM, Huisman HJ et al (2011) Relationship between apparent diffusion coefficients at 3.0-T MR imaging and Gleason grade in peripheral zone prostate cancer. Radiology 259:453–461PubMedCrossRef Hambrock T, Somford DM, Huisman HJ et al (2011) Relationship between apparent diffusion coefficients at 3.0-T MR imaging and Gleason grade in peripheral zone prostate cancer. Radiology 259:453–461PubMedCrossRef
12.
go back to reference Itou Y, Nakanishi K, Narumi Y, Nishizawa Y, Tsukuma H (2011) Clinical utility of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values in patients with prostate cancer: can ADC values contribute to assess the aggressiveness of prostate cancer? J Magn Reson Imaging 33:167–172PubMedCrossRef Itou Y, Nakanishi K, Narumi Y, Nishizawa Y, Tsukuma H (2011) Clinical utility of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values in patients with prostate cancer: can ADC values contribute to assess the aggressiveness of prostate cancer? J Magn Reson Imaging 33:167–172PubMedCrossRef
13.
go back to reference Aihara M, Wheeler TM, Ohori M, Scardino PT (1994) Heterogeneity of prostate cancer in radical prostatectomy specimens. Urology 43:60–67PubMedCrossRef Aihara M, Wheeler TM, Ohori M, Scardino PT (1994) Heterogeneity of prostate cancer in radical prostatectomy specimens. Urology 43:60–67PubMedCrossRef
14.
go back to reference Ruijter ET, van de Kaa CA, Schalken JA, Debruyne FM, Ruiter DJ (1996) Histological grade heterogeneity in multifocal prostate cancer. Biological and clinical implications. J Pathol 180:295–299PubMedCrossRef Ruijter ET, van de Kaa CA, Schalken JA, Debruyne FM, Ruiter DJ (1996) Histological grade heterogeneity in multifocal prostate cancer. Biological and clinical implications. J Pathol 180:295–299PubMedCrossRef
15.
go back to reference Singh AK, Kruecker J, Xu S et al (2008) Initial clinical experience with real-time transrectal ultrasonography-magnetic resonance imaging fusion-guided prostate biopsy. BJU Int 101:841–845PubMedCrossRef Singh AK, Kruecker J, Xu S et al (2008) Initial clinical experience with real-time transrectal ultrasonography-magnetic resonance imaging fusion-guided prostate biopsy. BJU Int 101:841–845PubMedCrossRef
16.
go back to reference Hu Y, Ahmed HU, Taylor A et al (2012) MR to ultrasound registration for image-guided prostate interventions. Med Image Anal 16:687–703PubMedCrossRef Hu Y, Ahmed HU, Taylor A et al (2012) MR to ultrasound registration for image-guided prostate interventions. Med Image Anal 16:687–703PubMedCrossRef
17.
go back to reference Kadoury S, Yan P, Xu S et al (2010) Realtime TRUS/MRI fusion targeted-biopsy for prostate cancer: a clinical demonstration of increased positive biopsy rates. In: Madabhushi A, Dowling J, Yan P, Fenster A, Abolmaesumi P, Hata N (eds) Prostate Cancer Imaging 2010. (LNCS 6367). Springer, Berlin, pp 87–109 Kadoury S, Yan P, Xu S et al (2010) Realtime TRUS/MRI fusion targeted-biopsy for prostate cancer: a clinical demonstration of increased positive biopsy rates. In: Madabhushi A, Dowling J, Yan P, Fenster A, Abolmaesumi P, Hata N (eds) Prostate Cancer Imaging 2010. (LNCS 6367). Springer, Berlin, pp 87–109
18.
go back to reference Miyagawa T, Ishikawa S, Kimura T et al (2010) Real-time virtual sonography for navigation during targeted prostate biopsy using magnetic resonance imaging data. Int J Urol 17:855–860PubMedCrossRef Miyagawa T, Ishikawa S, Kimura T et al (2010) Real-time virtual sonography for navigation during targeted prostate biopsy using magnetic resonance imaging data. Int J Urol 17:855–860PubMedCrossRef
19.
go back to reference Karnik VV, Fenster A, Bax J et al (2010) Assessment of image registration accuracy in three-dimensional transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy. Med Phys 37:802–813PubMedCrossRef Karnik VV, Fenster A, Bax J et al (2010) Assessment of image registration accuracy in three-dimensional transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy. Med Phys 37:802–813PubMedCrossRef
20.
go back to reference Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC, Amin MB, Egevad LL, Grading Committee ISUP (2005) The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 29:1228–1242PubMedCrossRef Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC, Amin MB, Egevad LL, Grading Committee ISUP (2005) The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 29:1228–1242PubMedCrossRef
21.
go back to reference Huisman H, Vos P (2010) MRCAD for daily clinical analysis of prostate MR. Kitware Source 13:14–15 Huisman H, Vos P (2010) MRCAD for daily clinical analysis of prostate MR. Kitware Source 13:14–15
22.
go back to reference Epstein JI (2010) An update of the Gleason grading system. J Urol 18:433–440CrossRef Epstein JI (2010) An update of the Gleason grading system. J Urol 18:433–440CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Kim JH, Kim JK, Park BW, Kim N, Cho KS (2008) Apparent diffusion coefficient: prostate cancer versus noncancerous tissue according to anatomical region. J Magn Reson Imaging 28:1173–1179PubMedCrossRef Kim JH, Kim JK, Park BW, Kim N, Cho KS (2008) Apparent diffusion coefficient: prostate cancer versus noncancerous tissue according to anatomical region. J Magn Reson Imaging 28:1173–1179PubMedCrossRef
24.
go back to reference Tamada T, Sone T, Jo Y et al (2008) Apparent diffusion coefficient values in peripheral and transition zones of the prostate: comparison between normal and malignant prostatic tissues and correlation with histologic grade. J Magn Reson Imaging 28:720–726PubMedCrossRef Tamada T, Sone T, Jo Y et al (2008) Apparent diffusion coefficient values in peripheral and transition zones of the prostate: comparison between normal and malignant prostatic tissues and correlation with histologic grade. J Magn Reson Imaging 28:720–726PubMedCrossRef
25.
go back to reference Oto A, Kayhan A, Jiang Y et al (2010) Prostate cancer: differentiation of central gland cancer from benign prostatic hyperplasia by using diffusion-weighted and dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 257:715–723PubMedCrossRef Oto A, Kayhan A, Jiang Y et al (2010) Prostate cancer: differentiation of central gland cancer from benign prostatic hyperplasia by using diffusion-weighted and dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 257:715–723PubMedCrossRef
26.
go back to reference Sato C, Naganawa S, Nakamura T et al (2005) Differentiation of noncancerous tissue and cancer lesions by apparent diffusion coefficient values in transition and peripheral zones of the prostate. J Magn Reson Imaging 21:258–262PubMedCrossRef Sato C, Naganawa S, Nakamura T et al (2005) Differentiation of noncancerous tissue and cancer lesions by apparent diffusion coefficient values in transition and peripheral zones of the prostate. J Magn Reson Imaging 21:258–262PubMedCrossRef
27.
go back to reference Verma S, Rajesh A, Morales H et al (2011) Assessment of aggressiveness of prostate cancer: correlation of apparent diffusion coefficient with histologic grade after radical prostatectomy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 196:374–381PubMedCrossRef Verma S, Rajesh A, Morales H et al (2011) Assessment of aggressiveness of prostate cancer: correlation of apparent diffusion coefficient with histologic grade after radical prostatectomy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 196:374–381PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Simulated required accuracy of image registration tools for targeting high-grade cancer components with prostate biopsies
Authors
Wendy J. M. van de Ven
Christina A. Hulsbergen–van de Kaa
Thomas Hambrock
Jelle O. Barentsz
Henkjan J. Huisman
Publication date
01-05-2013
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
European Radiology / Issue 5/2013
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-012-2701-1

Other articles of this Issue 5/2013

European Radiology 5/2013 Go to the issue