Modeling and mapping of prostate cancer

Abstract Prostate cancer is one of the most common cancers for men. Biopsy of the prostate is carried out following protocols that designate locations and number of needles for tissue sampling as prostate cancer mostly does not show up in the ultrasound images or other modalities. Current protocols for prostate biopsy, however, were created largely based on qualitative clinical experiences and pathological data. They are thus sub-optimal in terms of rate of cancer detection. In fact, the most commonly used protocol (the sextant biopsy) has only about a 30% rate of cancer detection. This leads to more frequent repeat biopsies and potentially runs the risk of not detecting a significant cancer in early stage. In this paper, we aim at improving the performance of prostate needle biopsy by modeling and mapping prostate cancer using real prostate specimens. Surface models of the prostate are reconstructed using deformable modeling techniques. A 3D visualization system is developed to simulate the process of prostate needle biopsy. A 3D distribution map of prostate cancer is built and used to develop optimal biopsy protocols. The 3D map can later be superimposed to online ultrasound images to guide biopsy process of real patients. Experimental results are also provided.

[1]  Jianhua Xuan,et al.  Surface reconstruction and visualization of the surgical prostate model , 1997, Medical Imaging.

[2]  M. Terris,et al.  Original Articles: Prostate Cancer: Indications for Ultrasound Guided Transition Zone Biopsies in the Detection of Prostate Cancer , 1995 .

[3]  G. D. Taylor,et al.  Computer simulation of the probability of detecting low volume carcinoma of the prostate with six random systematic core biopsies. , 1995, Urology.

[4]  T. Stamey,et al.  Core cancer length in ultrasound-guided systematic sextant biopsies: a preoperative evaluation of prostate cancer volume. , 1995, Urology.

[5]  S K Mun,et al.  Three-dimensional computer-simulated prostate models: lateral prostate biopsies increase the detection rate of prostate cancer. , 1999, Urology.

[6]  M. Terris,et al.  Random systematic versus directed ultrasound guided transrectal core biopsies of the prostate. , 1989, The Journal of urology.

[7]  J. Oesterling,et al.  A model for the number of cores per prostate biopsy based on patient age and prostate gland volume. , 1998, The Journal of urology.

[8]  W. Catalona,et al.  Serial prostatic biopsies in men with persistently elevated serum prostate specific antigen values. , 1994, The Journal of urology.

[9]  M W Kattan,et al.  Distinguishing clinically important from unimportant prostate cancers before treatment: value of systematic biopsies. , 1996, The Journal of urology.

[10]  C Busch,et al.  Three-dimensional computer reconstruction of prostate cancer from radical prostatectomy specimens: evaluation of the model by core biopsy simulation. , 1999, Urology.

[11]  R. Babaian,et al.  Role of PSA and its indices in determining the need for repeat prostate biopsies. , 1997, Urology.

[12]  Matthew T. Freedman,et al.  Optimizing prostate needle biopsy through 3D simulation , 1998, Medical Imaging.

[13]  D L McCullough,et al.  Systematic 5 region prostate biopsy is superior to sextant method for diagnosing carcinoma of the prostate. , 1997, The Journal of urology.

[14]  C T Chen,et al.  Dynamic elastic interpolation for 3D medical image reconstruction from serial cross sections. , 1988, IEEE transactions on medical imaging.