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

Abstract

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 multi-parametric 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 3-dimentional print 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.

Comparison of quantitative apparent diffusion coefficient parameters with prostate imaging reporting and data system V2 assessment for detection of clinically significant peripheral zone prostate cancer

“…However, MRI is known to significantly underestimate lesion size compared to whole mount prostatectomy analysis, particularly so for ADC [28,29]. It is therefore possible that volumetric contouring of tumor volume based upon ADC underestimates the actual number of tumors that would be considered csPC if it was based on pathological tumor volume definition.…”

Imaging and Pathology Correlations for Different Risk Stratification Models for Intermediate-risk Prostate Cancer

“…For example, a recent radiologic-pathologic correlation study of over 100 men using modern mpMRI demonstrated that pathologic prostate cancer foci had an average diameter 11 mm longer and a volume three times greater than based on mpMRI prediction (18). This may account for the reason that in our study, pre-treatment mpMRI MTD in the MSKCC model was not significantly different between the sub-groups.…”

Role of mpMRI of the prostate in screening for prostate cancer

“…In the report by Priester et al , tumors missed by MRI were significantly lower grade, smaller volume, and shorter in diameter than MRI-visible lesions (40). Thus, while these authors consider MRI to be insensitive for prostate cancer, they have in fact shown that MRI may reduce the issue of over diagnosis of clinically insignificant disease without meaningfully compromising the diagnosis of clinically significant cancer (40).…”