Variability in MRI vs. ultrasound measures of prostate volume and its impact on treatment recommendations for favorable-risk prostate cancer patients: a case series

Background: Prostate volume can affect whether patients qualify for brachytherapy (desired size ≥20 mL and ≤60 mL) and/or active surveillance (desired PSA density ≤0.15 for very low risk disease). This study examines variability in prostate volume measurements depending on imaging modality used (ultrasound versus MRI) and volume calculation technique (contouring versus ellipsoid) and quantifies the impact of this variability on treatment recommendations for men with favorable-risk prostate cancer. Methods: We examined 70 patients who presented consecutively for consideration of brachytherapy for favorable-risk prostate cancer who had volume estimates by three methods: contoured axial ultrasound slices, ultrasound ellipsoid (height × width × length × 0.523) calculation, and endorectal coil MRI (erMRI) ellipsoid calculation. Results: Average gland size by the contoured ultrasound, ellipsoid ultrasound, and erMRI methods were 33.99, 37.16, and 39.62 mLs, respectively. All pairwise comparisons between methods were statistically significant (all p < 0.015). Of the 66 patients who volumetrically qualified for brachytherapy on ellipsoid ultrasound measures, 22 (33.33%) did not qualify on ellipsoid erMRI or contoured ultrasound measures. 38 patients (54.28%) had PSA density ≤0.15 ng/dl as calculated using ellipsoid ultrasound volumes, compared to 34 (48.57%) and 38 patients (54.28%) using contoured ultrasound and ellipsoid erMRI volumes, respectively. Conclusions: The ultrasound ellipsoid and erMRI ellipsoid methods appeared to overestimate ultrasound contoured volume by an average of 9.34% and 16.57% respectively. 33.33% of those who qualified for brachytherapy based on ellipsoid ultrasound volume would be disqualified based on ultrasound contoured and/or erMRI ellipsoid volume. As treatment recommendations increasingly rely on estimates of prostate size, clinicians must consider method of volume estimation

Multimodality Non-rigid Image Registration for Planning, Targeting and Monitoring During CT-Guided Percutaneous Liver Tumor Cryoablation

Rationale and Objectives: To develop non-rigid image registration between pre-procedure contrast enhanced MR images and intra-procedure unenhanced CT images, to enhance tumor visualization and localization during CT-guided liver tumor cryoablation procedures. Materials and Methods: After IRB approval, a non-rigid registration (NRR) technique was evaluated with different pre-processing steps and algorithm parameters and compared to a standard rigid registration (RR) approach. The Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC), Target Registration Error (TRE), 95% Hausdorff distance (HD) and total registration time (minutes) were compared using a two-sided Student’s t-test. The entire registration method was then applied during five CT-guided liver cryoablation cases with the intra-procedural CT data transmitted directly from the CT scanner, with both accuracy and registration time evaluated. Results: Selected optimal parameters for registration were section thickness of 5mm, cropping the field of view to 66% of its original size, manual segmentation of the liver, B-spline control grid of 5×5×5 and spatial sampling of 50,000 pixels. Mean 95% HD of 3.3mm (2.5x improvement compared to RR, p<0.05); mean DSC metric of 0.97 (13% increase); and mean TRE of 4.1mm (2.7x reduction) were measured. During the cryoablation procedure registration between the pre-procedure MR and the planning intra-procedure CT took a mean time of 10.6 minutes, the MR to targeting CT image took 4 minutes and MR to monitoring CT took 4.3 minutes. Mean registration accuracy was under 3.4mm. Conclusion: Non-rigid registration allowed improved visualization of the tumor during interventional planning, targeting and evaluation of tumor coverage by the ice ball. Future work is focused on reducing segmentation time to make the method more clinically acceptable