Imaging of prostate cancer: a platform for 3D co-registration of in-vivo MRI ex-vivo MRI and pathology

Objectives: Multi-parametric MRI is emerging as a promising method for prostate cancer diagnosis. prognosis and treatment planning. However, the localization of in-vivo detected lesions and pathologic sites of cancer remains a significant challenge. To overcome this limitation we have developed and tested a system for co-registration of in-vivo MRI, ex-vivo MRI and histology. Materials and Methods: Three men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer (ages 54-72, PSA levels 5.1-7.7 ng/ml) were prospectively enrolled in this study. All patients underwent 3T multi-parametric MRI that included T2W, DCEMRI, and DWI prior to robotic-assisted prostatectomy. Ex-vivo multi-parametric MRI was performed on fresh prostate specimen. Excised prostates were then sliced at regular intervals and photographed both before and after fixation. Slices were perpendicular to the main axis of the posterior capsule, i.e., along the direction of the rectal wall. Guided by the location of the urethra, 2D digital images were assembled into 3D models. Cancer foci, extra-capsular extensions and zonal margins were delineated by the pathologist and included in 3D histology data. A locally-developed software was applied to register in-vivo, ex-vivo and histology using an over-determined set of anatomical landmarks placed in anterior fibro-muscular stroma, central. transition and peripheral zones. The mean root square distance across corresponding control points was used to assess co-registration error. Results: Two specimens were pT3a and one pT2b (negative margin) at pathology. The software successfully fused invivo MRI. ex-vivo MRI fresh specimen and histology using appropriate (rigid and affine) transformation models with mean square error of 1.59 mm. Coregistration accuracy was confirmed by multi-modality viewing using operator-guided variable transparency. Conclusion: The method enables successful co-registration of pre-operative MRI, ex-vivo MRI and pathology and it provides initial evidence of feasibility of MRI-guided surgical planning.

[1]  Osamu Ukimura,et al.  Intraprostatic targeting , 2012, Current opinion in urology.

[2]  K. Mardia,et al.  Statistical Shape Analysis , 1998 .

[3]  Thomas Hambrock,et al.  Prostate cancer: multiparametric MR imaging for detection, localization, and staging. , 2011, Radiology.

[4]  H. Hricak,et al.  Semi‐automatic deformable registration of prostate MR images to pathological slices , 2010, Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging.

[5]  Samir S Taneja,et al.  Targeting prostate cancer for focal destruction , 2008, Cancer.

[6]  Anant Madabhushi,et al.  Determining histology-MRI slice correspondences for defining MRI-based disease signatures of prostate cancer , 2011, Comput. Medical Imaging Graph..

[7]  A. Schned,et al.  Tissue-shrinkage correction factor in the calculation of prostate cancer volume. , 1996, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[8]  Laurent Lemaitre,et al.  Current status of MRI for the diagnosis, staging and prognosis of prostate cancer: implications for focal therapy and active surveillance , 2009, Current opinion in urology.

[9]  Magnus Hellström,et al.  Tissue shrinkage after fixation with formalin injection of prostatectomy specimens , 2006, Virchows Archiv.

[10]  Choon Hua Thng,et al.  Optimum slicing of radical prostatectomy specimens for correlation between histopathology and medical images , 2010, International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery.

[11]  Andrew B Rosenkrantz,et al.  Role of MRI in minimally invasive focal ablative therapy for prostate cancer. , 2011, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[12]  Gene H. Golub,et al.  Matrix computations , 1983 .

[13]  Jay B. West,et al.  Predicting error in rigid-body point-based registration , 1998, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[14]  A. Villers,et al.  Dynamic contrast enhanced, pelvic phased array magnetic resonance imaging of localized prostate cancer for predicting tumor volume: correlation with radical prostatectomy findings. , 2006, The Journal of urology.

[15]  Samir S Taneja,et al.  Candidate selection for prostate cancer focal therapy. , 2010, Journal of endourology.

[16]  T. Krouskop,et al.  Elastic Moduli of Breast and Prostate Tissues under Compression , 1998, Ultrasonic imaging.

[17]  Anant Madabhushi,et al.  Multi-attribute combined mutual information (MACMI): An image registration framework for leveraging multiple data channels , 2010, 2010 IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging: From Nano to Macro.

[18]  Baris Turkbey,et al.  Multiparametric 3T prostate magnetic resonance imaging to detect cancer: histopathological correlation using prostatectomy specimens processed in customized magnetic resonance imaging based molds. , 2011, The Journal of urology.

[19]  B. Carey,et al.  Magnetic resonance imaging for the detection, localisation, and characterisation of prostate cancer: recommendations from a European consensus meeting. , 2011, European urology.

[20]  T. Stamey,et al.  Assessment of morphometric measurements of prostate carcinoma volume , 2000, Cancer.

[21]  Guilherme Godoy,et al.  Focal therapy: a new paradigm for the treatment of prostate cancer. , 2009, Reviews in urology.

[22]  Xavier Leroy,et al.  Combined multiparametric MRI and targeted biopsies improve anterior prostate cancer detection, staging, and grading. , 2011, Urology.

[23]  Valeria Panebianco,et al.  Advances in magnetic resonance imaging: how they are changing the management of prostate cancer. , 2011, European urology.

[24]  Baris Turkbey,et al.  Use of patient-specific MRI-based prostate mold for validation of multiparametric MRI in localization of prostate cancer. , 2012, Urology.

[25]  J. McNeal,et al.  Normal histology of the prostate. , 1988, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[26]  Alan W Partin,et al.  Radical prostatectomy for clinical stage T3a disease , 2007, Cancer.