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

AbstractObjectivesTo 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.MethodsPZ 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.ResultsAn 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.ConclusionsTo 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

[1]  T. Wheeler,et al.  Heterogeneity of prostate cancer in radical prostatectomy specimens. , 1994, Urology.

[2]  Thomas Hambrock,et al.  Magnetic resonance imaging guided prostate biopsy in men with repeat negative biopsies and increased prostate specific antigen. , 2010, The Journal of urology.

[3]  Tsuyoshi Mitake,et al.  Real‐time Virtual Sonography for navigation during targeted prostate biopsy using magnetic resonance imaging data , 2010, International journal of urology : official journal of the Japanese Urological Association.

[4]  D. Parkin,et al.  Global cancer statistics in the year 2000. , 2001, The Lancet. Oncology.

[5]  Thomas Hambrock,et al.  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. , 2012, European urology.

[6]  D J Ruiter,et al.  HISTOLOGICAL GRADE HETEROGENEITY IN MULTIFOCAL PROSTATE CANCER. BIOLOGICAL AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS , 1996, The Journal of pathology.

[7]  Peter Guion,et al.  Initial clinical experience with real‐time transrectal ultrasonography‐magnetic resonance imaging fusion‐guided prostate biopsy , 2008, BJU international.

[8]  S. Verma,et al.  Assessment of aggressiveness of prostate cancer: correlation of apparent diffusion coefficient with histologic grade after radical prostatectomy. , 2011, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[9]  A. Fenster,et al.  Assessment of image registration accuracy in three-dimensional transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy. , 2010, Medical physics.

[10]  J. Epstein An update of the Gleason grading system. , 2010, The Journal of urology.

[11]  Aytekin Oto,et al.  Prostate cancer: differentiation of central gland cancer from benign prostatic hyperplasia by using diffusion-weighted and dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. , 2010, Radiology.

[12]  Zeike A. Taylor,et al.  MR to ultrasound registration for image-guided prostate interventions , 2012, Medical Image Anal..

[13]  William J Catalona,et al.  Serial biopsy results in prostate cancer screening study. , 2002, The Journal of urology.

[14]  Kazuro Sugimura,et al.  Prostate cancer detection with 3 T MRI: Comparison of diffusion‐weighted imaging and dynamic contrast‐enhanced MRI in combination with T2‐weighted imaging , 2010, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[15]  H. Kretschmer Transactions of the Philadelphia Branch of the American Urological Association: Urological Problems in Infancy and Childhood , 1927 .

[16]  Sheng Xu,et al.  Realtime TRUS/MRI Fusion Targeted-Biopsy for Prostate Cancer: A Clinical Demonstration of Increased Positive Biopsy Rates , 2010, Prostate Cancer Imaging.

[17]  N M deSouza,et al.  Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging: a potential non-invasive marker of tumour aggressiveness in localized prostate cancer. , 2008, Clinical radiology.

[18]  L. Egevad,et al.  The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma , 2005, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[19]  H. Huisman,et al.  Prostate cancer localization with dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging and proton MR spectroscopic imaging. , 2006, Radiology.

[20]  佐藤 千峰,et al.  Differentiation of noncancerous tissue and cancer lesions by apparent diffusion coefficient values in transition and peripheral zones of the prostate , 2006 .

[21]  S. Fosså,et al.  Concordance between Gleason scores of needle biopsies and radical prostatectomy specimens: a population‐based study , 2009, BJU international.

[22]  Katsuyoshi Ito,et al.  Apparent diffusion coefficient values in peripheral and transition zones of the prostate: Comparison between normal and malignant prostatic tissues and correlation with histologic grade , 2008, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[23]  H. Shinmoto,et al.  Prostate cancer screening: The clinical value of diffusion‐weighted imaging and dynamic MR imaging in combination with T2‐weighted imaging , 2007, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[24]  Namkug Kim,et al.  Apparent diffusion coefficient: Prostate cancer versus noncancerous tissue according to anatomical region , 2008, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[25]  A. Jemal,et al.  Global Cancer Statistics , 2011 .

[26]  P. Box Relationship between apparent diffusion coefficients at 3.0-T MR imaging and Gleason grade in peripheral zone prostate cancer , 2011 .

[27]  M. Soloway,et al.  Trends in Gleason score: concordance between biopsy and prostatectomy over 15 years. , 2008, Urology.

[28]  Katsuyuki Nakanishi,et al.  Clinical utility of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values in patients with prostate cancer: Can ADC values contribute to assess the aggressiveness of prostate cancer? , 2011, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.