Top

International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery

Published in:

01-05-2021 | Prostate Cancer | Original Article

Initial phantom studies for an office-based low-field MR system for prostate biopsy

Authors: Selin Chiragzada, Eva Hellman, Duncan Michael, Ram Narayanan, Aleksandar Nacev, Dinesh Kumar

Published in: International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery | Issue 5/2021

Abstract

Purpose

Prostate cancer is the second most prevalent cancer in US men, with about 192,000 new cases and 33,000 deaths predicted for 2020. With only a 31% 5-year survival rate for patients with an initial diagnosis of stage-four prostate cancer, the necessity for early screening and diagnosis is clear. In this paper, we present navigation accuracy results for Promaxo’s MR system intended to be used in a physician’s office for image-guided transperineal prostate biopsy.

Methods

The office-based low-field MR system was used to acquire images of prostate phantoms with needles inserted through a transperineal template. Coordinates of the estimated sample core locations in the office-based MR system were compared to ground truth needle coordinates identified in a 1.5T external reference scan. The error was measured as the distance between the planned target and the ground truth core center and as the shortest perpendicular distance between the planned target and the ground truth trajectory of the whole core.

Results

The average error between the planned target and the ground truth core center was 2.57 ± 1.02 mm, [1.93–3.21] 95% CI. The average error between the planned target to the actual core segment was 2.05 ± 1.24 mm, [1.53–2.56] 95% CI.

Conclusion

The average navigation errors were below the clinically significant threshold of 5 mm. The initial phantom results demonstrate the feasibility of the office-based system for prostate biopsy.

Key Statistics for Prostate Cancer: Prostate Cancer Facts. (n.d.). http://www.cancer.org/cancer/prostate-cancer/about/key-statistics. Accessed October 19, 2020

Prostate Cancer - Statistics. (2020). https://www.cancer.net/cancer-types/prostate-cancer/statistics. Accessed October 19, 2020

Prostate Biopsy Procedure: Purpose, Side Effects, & Recovery. (2019). https://www.webmd.com/prostate-cancer/what-is-prostate-biopsy. Accessed October 21, 2020

Ahmed HU, Kirkham A, Arya M, Illing R, Freeman A, Allen C, Emberton M (2009) Is it time to consider a role for MRI before prostate biopsy? Nat Rev Clin Oncol 6(4):197–206. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrclinonc.2009.18CrossRefPubMed

Ultrasound-guided transperineal prostate biopsy. (2019). https://www.mayoclinic.org/medical-professionals/urology/news/ultrasound-guided-transperineal-prostate-biopsy/mac-20473283. Accessed October 22, 2020

Prostate Cancer. (n.d.). https://cancer.psu.edu/condition/-/condition/prostate-cancer. Accessed October 20, 2020

Chen F, Abreu AL, Palmer S (2016) Utility of ultrasound in the diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of prostate cancer: state of the art. J Nucl Med 57:13S-18S. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.116.177196CrossRefPubMed

Nelson AW, Harvey RC, Parker RA, Kastner C, Doble A, Gnanapragasam VJ (2013) Repeat prostate biopsy strategies after initial negative biopsy: meta-regression comparing cancer detection of transperineal, transrectal saturation and MRI guided biopsy. PLoS ONE 8(2):e57480. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0057480CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Bjurlin MA, Rosenkrantz AB, Lepor H, Taneja SS (2017) Magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer. Transl Androl Urol 6(3); 343–344. https://doi.org/10.21037/tau.2017.05.16

10.

Sperling, D (2019) Prostate Zone Anatomy, Prostate Cancer and Imaging. https://sperlingprostatecenter.com/prostate-zone-anatomy-prostate-cancer-and-imaging/. Accessed October 21, 2020

11.

De Visschere P (2018) Improving the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer with magnetic resonance imaging. J Belgian Soc Radiol 102(1). https://doi.org/10.5334/jbsr.1438

12.

Marks L, Natarajan S, Margolis D, Huang J, Kumar D, Narayanan R, Bentley R, Macairan ML, Lieu P (2011) 2316 Artemis: An office-based device for Mri fusion and targeted prostate biopsy. J Urol 185(4S). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2011.02.2562

13.

Narayanan R, Kurhanewicz J, Shinohara K, Crawford ED, Simoneau A, Suri JS (2009) MRI-ultrasound registration for targeted prostate biopsy. In: 2009 IEEE International symposium on biomedical imaging: from nano to macro. https://doi.org/10.1109/isbi.2009.5193221

14.

Cool DW, Zhang X, Romagnoli C, Izawa JI, Romano WM, Fenster A (2015) Evaluation of MRI-TRUS fusion versus cognitive registration accuracy for MRI-targeted, TRUS-guided prostate biopsy. Am J Roentgenol 204(1):83–91. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.14.12681CrossRef

15.

Liu D, Meyer T, Usmani N, Kay I, Husain S, Angyalfi S, Sloboda R (2015) Implanted brachytherapy seed movement reflecting transrectal ultrasound probe-induced prostate deformation. Brachytherapy 14(6):809–17CrossRef

16.

Yipeng Hu, Eli Gibson, Nooshin Ghavami, Ester Bonmati, Caroline M. Moore, Mark Emberton, Tom Vercauteren, J. Alison Noble, Dean C. Barratt (2018) Adversarial deformation regularization for training image registration neural networks, MICCAI 2018, LNCS 11070. 774–782

17.

Gomes MD, Le N, Nacev A (2020) Z Encoded Phase Yields Refocused Slices (ZEPHYRS) Imaging with a Single Sided MRI.[Conference presentation]. ENC 2020 Convention, Baltimore, MD, United States

18.

Le N, Gomes MD, Nacev A (2020) Chirped RARE with a single sided MRI. [Conference presentation] ENC 2020, Baltimore, MD, United States

19.

Turkbey B, Rosenkrantz AB, Haider MA, Padhani AR, Villeirs G, Macura KJ, Tempany CM, Choyke PL, Cornud F, Margolis DJ, Thoeny HC, Verma S, Barentsz J, Weinreb JC (2019) Prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2.1: 2019 update of prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2. European urology. 76(3):340–351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2019.02.033CrossRefPubMed

20.

Cancer Imaging Archive Wiki. (n.d.). https://wiki.cancerimagingarchive.net/display/Public/SPIE-AAPM-NCI+PROSTATEx+Challenges. Accessed November 03, 2020

21.

Yushkevich PA, Piven J, Hazlett HC, Smith RG, Ho S, Gee JC, Gerig G (2006) User-guided 3D active contour segmentation of anatomical structures: Significantly improved efficiency and reliability. NeuroImage 31(3):1116–1128CrossRef

22.

Kikinis R, Piepe SD, Vosburgh KG (2013) 3D slicer: a platform for subject-specific image analysis, visualization and clinical support. Intraoper Imaging Image-Guided Ther 277–289. https://www.slicer.org/

23.

Wasserman NF, Niendorf E, Spilseth B (2020) Measurement of prostate volume with MRI (a guide for the perplexed): biproximate method with analysis of precision and accuracy. Sci Rep 10(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-57046-x

24.

Blumenfeld P, Hata N, Dimaio S, Zou K, Haker S, Fichtinger G, Tempany CM (2007) Transperineal prostate biopsy under magnetic resonance image guidance: A needle placement accuracy study. J Magn Reson Imaging 26(3):688–694. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.21067CrossRefPubMed

25.

Seifabadi R, Cho NB, Song S, Tokuda J, Hata N, Tempany CM, Fichtinger G, Iordachita I (2012) Accuracy study of a robotic system for MRI-guided prostate needle placement. Int J Med Robot Comput Assist Surg 9(3):305–316. https://doi.org/10.1002/rcs.1440CrossRefPubMed

26.

Wegelin O, Henken KR, Somford DM, Breuking FA, Bosch RJ, Swol CF, Melick HH (2016) An ex vivo phantom validation study of an MRI-transrectal ultrasound fusion device for targeted prostate biopsy. J Endourol 30(6):685–691. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2015.0864CrossRefPubMed

27.

Hu Y, Kasivisvanathan V, Simmons LA, Clarkson MJ, Thompson S, Shah TT, Ahmed HU, Punwani S, Hawkes DJ, Emberton M, Moore CM, Barratt DC (2017) Development and Phantom Validation of a 3-D-Ultrasound-Guided System for Targeting MRI-Visible Lesions During Transrectal Prostate Biopsy. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 64(4):946–958. https://doi.org/10.1109/tbme.2016.2582734CrossRefPubMed

28.

Westhoff N, Siegel FP, Hausmann D, Polednik M, Hardenberg JV, Michel MS, Ritter M (2016) Precision of MRI/ultrasound-fusion biopsy in prostate cancer diagnosis: An ex vivo comparison of alternative biopsy techniques on prostate phantoms. World J Urol 35(7):1015–1022. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-016-1967-3CrossRefPubMed

29.

Ukimura O, Desai MM, Palmer S, Valencerina S, Gross M, Abreu AL, Aron M, Gill IS (2012) 3-Dimensional Elastic Registration System of Prostate Biopsy Location by Real-Time 3-Dimensional Transrectal Ultrasound Guidance With Magnetic Resonance/Transrectal Ultrasound Image Fusion. J Urol 187(3):1080–1086. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2011.10.124CrossRefPubMed

30.

Bonmati E, Hu Y, Villarini B, Rodell R, Martin P, Han L, Donaldson I, Ahmed HU, Moore CM, Emberton M, Barratt DC (2018) Error metrics for estimating the accuracy of needle/instrument placement during transperineal magnetic resonance/ultrasound-guided prostate interventions. Med Phys 45(4):1408–1414. https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.12814CrossRefPubMed

31.

Xu H, Lasso A, Guion P, Krieger A, Kaushal A, Singh AK, Pinto AP, Coleman J, Grubb RL III, Lattouf J, Menard C, Whitcomb LL, Fichtinger G (2013) Accuracy analysis in MRI-guided robotic prostate biopsy. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 8(6):937–944. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-013-0831-9CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

32.

Susil RC, Camphausen K, Choyke P, Mcveigh ER, Gustafson GS, Ning H, Miller RW, Atalar E, Coleman CN, Ménard C (2004) System for prostate brachytherapy and biopsy in a standard 1.5 T MRI scanner. Mag Resonan Med 52(3):683–687. https://doi.org/10.1002/mrm.20138

33.

Patel NA, Li G, Shang W, Wartenberg M, Heffter T, Burdette EC, Iordachita I, Tokuda J, Hata N, Tempany CM, Fischer GS (2019) System integration and preliminary clinical evaluation of a robotic system for MRI-guided transperineal prostate biopsy. J Med Robot Res 04(02):1950001. https://doi.org/10.1142/s2424905x19500016CrossRef

34.

Ball MW, Ross AE, Ghabili K, Kim C, Jun C, Petrisor D, Pan L, Epstein JI, Macura KJ, Stoianovici DS, Allaf ME (2017) Safety and feasibility of direct magnetic resonance imaging-guided transperineal prostate biopsy using a novel magnetic resonance imaging-safe robotic device. Urology 109:216–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2017.07.010CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Title: Initial phantom studies for an office-based low-field MR system for prostate biopsy
Authors: Selin Chiragzada
Eva Hellman
Duncan Michael
Ram Narayanan
Aleksandar Nacev
Dinesh Kumar
Publication date: 01-05-2021
Publisher: Springer International Publishing
Keywords: Prostate Cancer
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Prostate Cancer
Published in: International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery / Issue 5/2021
Print ISSN: 1861-6410
Electronic ISSN: 1861-6429
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-021-02364-7

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Initial phantom studies for an office-based low-field MR system for prostate biopsy

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 5/2021

Automatic extraction of the mitral valve chordae geometry for biomechanical simulation

Real-to-virtual domain transfer-based depth estimation for real-time 3D annotation in transnasal surgery: a study of annotation accuracy and stability

Time-aware deep neural networks for needle tip localization in 2D ultrasound

Against spatial–temporal discrepancy: contrastive learning-based network for surgical workflow recognition

Learning ultrasound rendering from cross-sectional model slices for simulated training

Simulation-to-real domain adaptation with teacher–student learning for endoscopic instrument segmentation