Automated Computer-derived Prostate Volumes from MR Imaging Data: Comparison with Radiologist-derived MR Imaging and Pathologic Specimen Volumes

Abstract

Purpose:To compare prostate gland volume (PV) estimation of automated computer-generated multifeature active shape models (MFAs) performed with 3-T magnetic resonance (MR) imaging with that of other methods of PV assessment, with pathologic specimens as the reference standard. Materials and Methods:All subjects provided written informed consent for this HIPAA-compliant and institutional review board-approved study. Freshly weighed prostatectomy specimens from 91 patients (mean age, 59 years; range, 42-84 years) served as the reference standard. PVs were manually calculated by two independent readers from MR images by using the standard ellipsoid formula. Planimetry PV was calculated from gland areas generated by two independent investigators by using manually drawn regions of interest.Computer-automated assessment of PV with an MFA was determined by the aggregate computer-calculated prostate area over the range of axial T2-weighted prostate MR images. Linear regression, linear mixed-effects models, concordance correlation coeffi cients, and Bland-Altman limits of agreement were used to compare volume estimation methods. Results:MFA-derived PVs had the best correlation with pathologic specimen PVs (slope, 0.888). Planimetry derived volumes produced slopes of 0.864 and 0.804 for two independent readers when compared with specimen PVs. Ellipsoid formula-derived PVs had slopes closest to one when compared with planimetry PVs. Manual MR imaging and MFA PV estimates had high concordance correlation coefficients with pathologic specimens. Conclusion:MFAs with axial T2-weighted MR imaging provided an automated and effi cient tool with which to assess PV. Both MFAs and MR imaging planimetry require adjustments for optimized PV accuracy when compared with prostatectomy specimens.q RSNA, 2012

Simultaneous segmentation of prostatic zones using Active Appearance Models with multiple coupled levelsets

“…However, most extant prostate segmentation systems only consider the prostate capsule boundary [6, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32]. Makni et al [33] developed a system for distinguishing the internal prostate structures on multiparametric MRI, but assumed the prostate is already segmented.…”

MRI‐based prostate volume‐adjusted prostate‐specific antigen in the diagnosis of prostate cancer

“…However, determination of prostate volume with DRE or TRUS is notoriously inaccurate. On the other hand, estimation of prostate volumes from magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is potentially much more accurate . Furthermore, with MRI‐based segmentation, it is possible to differentiate the total prostate volume from the volume of the CG.…”

Prostate Volumes Derived From MRI and Volume-Adjusted Serum Prostate-Specific Antigen: Correlation With Gleason Score of Prostate Cancer

“…Automated or semiautomated segmentation methods can be applied to prostate MRI examinations and allow accurate volume estimation with minimal interobserver variations [24, 25]. Our semiautomated MRI-based prostate segmentation method produced total prostate volume estimates that highly correlated with prostate weight (correlation coefficient, 0.94).…”

“…We then divided the estimated total prostate weight by 1.05 g/ mL (density of prostatic tissue) and used the resulting volume estimate as the reference standard, as in earlier studies [29]. An identical reference standard for prostate volume was also described in a previously published study [25]. …”

“…In patients 50 years old and older, the TZ typically enlarges because of BPH and comprises most of the central gland. MRI may also be more accurate than transrectal ultrasound and CT for prostate volume estimation [20–25]. Superior contrast resolution of MRI compared with transrectal ultrasound may also lead to the possibility of application of tumor volume–adjusted PSA levels for the assessment of prostate cancer aggressiveness.…”