Impact of region contouring variability on image-based focal therapy evaluation

Motivation: Focal therapy is an emerging low-morbidity treatment option for low-intermediate risk prostate cancer; however, challenges remain in accurately delivering treatment to specified targets and determining treatment success. Registered multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging (MPMRI) acquired before and after treatment can support focal therapy evaluation and optimization; however, contouring variability, when defining the prostate, the clinical target volume (CTV) and the ablation region in images, reduces the precision of quantitative image-based focal therapy evaluation metrics. To inform the interpretation and clarify the limitations of such metrics, we investigated inter-observer contouring variability and its impact on four metrics. Methods: Pre-therapy and 2-week-post-therapy standard-of-care MPMRI were acquired from 5 focal cryotherapy patients. Two clinicians independently contoured, on each slice, the prostate (pre- and post-treatment) and the dominant index lesion CTV (pre-treatment) in the T2-weighted MRI, and the ablated region (post-treatment) in the dynamic-contrast- enhanced MRI. For each combination of clinician contours, post-treatment images were registered to pre-treatment images using a 3D biomechanical-model-based registration of prostate surfaces, and four metrics were computed: the proportion of the target tissue region that was ablated and the target:ablated region volume ratio for each of two targets (the CTV and an expanded planning target volume). Variance components analysis was used to measure the contribution of each type of contour to the variance in the therapy evaluation metrics. Conclusions: 14–23% of evaluation metric variance was attributable to contouring variability (including 6–12% from ablation region contouring); reducing this variability could improve the precision of focal therapy evaluation metrics.

[1]  Sébastien Ourselin,et al.  High-Speed Nonlinear Finite Element Analysis for Surgical Simulation Using Graphics Processing Units , 2008, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[2]  J. Fütterer,et al.  ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012 , 2012, European Radiology.

[3]  John T. Wei,et al.  Quality of life and satisfaction with outcome among prostate-cancer survivors. , 2008, The New England journal of medicine.

[4]  N. Hata,et al.  The Effects of Young’s Modulus on Predicting Prostate Deformation for MRI-Guided Interventions , 2011 .

[5]  Computer-Assisted Intervention,et al.  Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention – MICCAI’99 , 1999, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[6]  Y. Hu,et al.  Registration of magnetic resonance and ultrasound images for guiding prostate cancer interventions , 2013 .

[7]  A. D'Amico,et al.  Evaluation of three-dimensional finite element-based deformable registration of pre- and intraoperative prostate imaging. , 2001, Medical physics.

[8]  Edward L. Chaney,et al.  Automated Finite-Element Analysis for Deformable Registration of Prostate Images , 2007, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[9]  David J. Hawkes,et al.  Deformable Vessel-Based Registration Using Landmark-Guided Coherent Point Drift , 2010, MIAR.

[10]  Ron Kikinis,et al.  3D Image Matching Using a Finite Element Based Elastic Deformation Model , 1999, MICCAI.

[11]  Nathan Lawrentschuk,et al.  The Role of Focal Therapy in the Management of Localised Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review , 2014, European urology.

[12]  Christos Davatzikos,et al.  A robust framework for soft tissue simulations with application to modeling brain tumor mass effect in 3D MR images , 2007, Physics in medicine and biology.

[13]  R. Beyth,et al.  Screening for prostate cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials , 2010, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[14]  Hessel Wijkstra,et al.  Role of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in focal therapy for prostate cancer: a Delphi consensus project , 2014, BJU international.