Magnetic Resonance Imaging Underestimation of Prostate Cancer Geometry: Use of Patient Specific Molds to Correlate Images with Whole Mount Pathology

• Published in: The Journal of urology Vol. 197; no. 2; pp. 320 - 326
• Main Authors: Priester, Alan, Natarajan, Shyam, Khoshnoodi, Pooria, Margolis, Daniel J, Raman, Steven S, Reiter, Robert E, Huang, Jiaoti, Grundfest, Warren, Marks, Leonard S
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Elsevier Inc 01.02.2017
• Subjects: Aged; computer-assisted; diagnostic errors; Humans; image processing; Imaging, Three-Dimensional - methods; magnetic resonance imaging; Magnetic Resonance Imaging - methods; Male; Middle Aged; Models, Anatomic; pathology; Prostate - pathology; Prostatectomy; prostatic neoplasms; Prostatic Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging; Prostatic Neoplasms - pathology; Retrospective Studies; surgical; Urology; Gleason score; multiparametric MRI; magnetic resonance imaging; pathology; MRI; LR; csCaP; computer-assisted; CaP; surgical; 3-dimensional; left-right; image processing; maximum Hausdorff distance; diagnostic errors; base-apex; GS; ROI; AP; anteroposterior; 3D; prostate cancer; mpMRI; clinically significant CaP; prostatic neoplasms; region of interest; BA; HDmax
• ISSN: 0022-5347; 1527-3792
• DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2016.07.084

Purpose We evaluated the accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging in determining the size and shape of localized prostate cancer. Materials and Methods The subjects were 114 men who underwent multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging before radical prostatectomy with patient specific mold processing of the specimen from 2013 to 2015. T2-weighted images were used to contour the prostate capsule and cancer suspicious regions of interest. The contours were used to design and print 3-dimensional custom molds, which permitted alignment of excised prostates with magnetic resonance imaging scans. Tumors were reconstructed in 3 dimensions from digitized whole mount sections. Tumors were then matched with regions of interest and the relative geometries were compared. Results Of the 222 tumors evident on whole mount sections 118 had been identified on magnetic resonance imaging. For the 118 regions of interest mean volume was 0.8 cc and the longest 3-dimensional diameter was 17 mm. However, for matched pathological tumors, of which most were Gleason score 3 + 4 or greater, mean volume was 2.5 cc and the longest 3-dimensional diameter was 28 mm. The median tumor had a 13.5 mm maximal extent beyond the magnetic resonance imaging contour and 80% of cancer volume from matched tumors was outside region of interest boundaries. Size estimation was most accurate in the axial plane and least accurate along the base-apex axis. Conclusions Magnetic resonance imaging consistently underestimates the size and extent of prostate tumors. Prostate cancer foci had an average diameter 11 mm longer and a volume 3 times greater than T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging segmentations. These results may have important implications for the assessment and treatment of prostate cancer.