Cargando…

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 (ult...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Murciano-Goroff, Yonina R, Wolfsberger, Luciant D, Parekh, Arti, Fennessy, Fiona M, Tuncali, Kemal, Orio, Peter F, Niedermayr, Thomas R, Suh, W Warren, Devlin, Phillip M, Tempany, Clare Mary C, Sugar, Emily H Neubauer, O’Farrell, Desmond A, Steele, Graeme, O’Leary, Michael, Buzurovic, Ivan, Damato, Antonio L, Cormack, Robert A, Fedorov, Andriy Y, Nguyen, Paul L
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4261899/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25205146
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1748-717X-9-200
_version_ 1782348350404689920
author Murciano-Goroff, Yonina R
Wolfsberger, Luciant D
Parekh, Arti
Fennessy, Fiona M
Tuncali, Kemal
Orio, Peter F
Niedermayr, Thomas R
Suh, W Warren
Devlin, Phillip M
Tempany, Clare Mary C
Sugar, Emily H Neubauer
O’Farrell, Desmond A
Steele, Graeme
O’Leary, Michael
Buzurovic, Ivan
Damato, Antonio L
Cormack, Robert A
Fedorov, Andriy Y
Nguyen, Paul L
author_facet Murciano-Goroff, Yonina R
Wolfsberger, Luciant D
Parekh, Arti
Fennessy, Fiona M
Tuncali, Kemal
Orio, Peter F
Niedermayr, Thomas R
Suh, W Warren
Devlin, Phillip M
Tempany, Clare Mary C
Sugar, Emily H Neubauer
O’Farrell, Desmond A
Steele, Graeme
O’Leary, Michael
Buzurovic, Ivan
Damato, Antonio L
Cormack, Robert A
Fedorov, Andriy Y
Nguyen, Paul L
author_sort Murciano-Goroff, Yonina R
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4261899
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-42618992014-12-10 Variability in MRI vs. ultrasound measures of prostate volume and its impact on treatment recommendations for favorable-risk prostate cancer patients: a case series Murciano-Goroff, Yonina R Wolfsberger, Luciant D Parekh, Arti Fennessy, Fiona M Tuncali, Kemal Orio, Peter F Niedermayr, Thomas R Suh, W Warren Devlin, Phillip M Tempany, Clare Mary C Sugar, Emily H Neubauer O’Farrell, Desmond A Steele, Graeme O’Leary, Michael Buzurovic, Ivan Damato, Antonio L Cormack, Robert A Fedorov, Andriy Y Nguyen, Paul L Radiat Oncol Research 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. BioMed Central 2014-09-09 /pmc/articles/PMC4261899/ /pubmed/25205146 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1748-717X-9-200 Text en © Murciano-Goroff et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014 This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research
Murciano-Goroff, Yonina R
Wolfsberger, Luciant D
Parekh, Arti
Fennessy, Fiona M
Tuncali, Kemal
Orio, Peter F
Niedermayr, Thomas R
Suh, W Warren
Devlin, Phillip M
Tempany, Clare Mary C
Sugar, Emily H Neubauer
O’Farrell, Desmond A
Steele, Graeme
O’Leary, Michael
Buzurovic, Ivan
Damato, Antonio L
Cormack, Robert A
Fedorov, Andriy Y
Nguyen, Paul L
Variability in MRI vs. ultrasound measures of prostate volume and its impact on treatment recommendations for favorable-risk prostate cancer patients: a case series
title Variability in MRI vs. ultrasound measures of prostate volume and its impact on treatment recommendations for favorable-risk prostate cancer patients: a case series
title_full Variability in MRI vs. ultrasound measures of prostate volume and its impact on treatment recommendations for favorable-risk prostate cancer patients: a case series
title_fullStr Variability in MRI vs. ultrasound measures of prostate volume and its impact on treatment recommendations for favorable-risk prostate cancer patients: a case series
title_full_unstemmed Variability in MRI vs. ultrasound measures of prostate volume and its impact on treatment recommendations for favorable-risk prostate cancer patients: a case series
title_short Variability in MRI vs. ultrasound measures of prostate volume and its impact on treatment recommendations for favorable-risk prostate cancer patients: a case series
title_sort variability in mri vs. ultrasound measures of prostate volume and its impact on treatment recommendations for favorable-risk prostate cancer patients: a case series
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4261899/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25205146
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1748-717X-9-200
work_keys_str_mv AT murcianogoroffyoninar variabilityinmrivsultrasoundmeasuresofprostatevolumeanditsimpactontreatmentrecommendationsforfavorableriskprostatecancerpatientsacaseseries
AT wolfsbergerluciantd variabilityinmrivsultrasoundmeasuresofprostatevolumeanditsimpactontreatmentrecommendationsforfavorableriskprostatecancerpatientsacaseseries
AT parekharti variabilityinmrivsultrasoundmeasuresofprostatevolumeanditsimpactontreatmentrecommendationsforfavorableriskprostatecancerpatientsacaseseries
AT fennessyfionam variabilityinmrivsultrasoundmeasuresofprostatevolumeanditsimpactontreatmentrecommendationsforfavorableriskprostatecancerpatientsacaseseries
AT tuncalikemal variabilityinmrivsultrasoundmeasuresofprostatevolumeanditsimpactontreatmentrecommendationsforfavorableriskprostatecancerpatientsacaseseries
AT oriopeterf variabilityinmrivsultrasoundmeasuresofprostatevolumeanditsimpactontreatmentrecommendationsforfavorableriskprostatecancerpatientsacaseseries
AT niedermayrthomasr variabilityinmrivsultrasoundmeasuresofprostatevolumeanditsimpactontreatmentrecommendationsforfavorableriskprostatecancerpatientsacaseseries
AT suhwwarren variabilityinmrivsultrasoundmeasuresofprostatevolumeanditsimpactontreatmentrecommendationsforfavorableriskprostatecancerpatientsacaseseries
AT devlinphillipm variabilityinmrivsultrasoundmeasuresofprostatevolumeanditsimpactontreatmentrecommendationsforfavorableriskprostatecancerpatientsacaseseries
AT tempanyclaremaryc variabilityinmrivsultrasoundmeasuresofprostatevolumeanditsimpactontreatmentrecommendationsforfavorableriskprostatecancerpatientsacaseseries
AT sugaremilyhneubauer variabilityinmrivsultrasoundmeasuresofprostatevolumeanditsimpactontreatmentrecommendationsforfavorableriskprostatecancerpatientsacaseseries
AT ofarrelldesmonda variabilityinmrivsultrasoundmeasuresofprostatevolumeanditsimpactontreatmentrecommendationsforfavorableriskprostatecancerpatientsacaseseries
AT steelegraeme variabilityinmrivsultrasoundmeasuresofprostatevolumeanditsimpactontreatmentrecommendationsforfavorableriskprostatecancerpatientsacaseseries
AT olearymichael variabilityinmrivsultrasoundmeasuresofprostatevolumeanditsimpactontreatmentrecommendationsforfavorableriskprostatecancerpatientsacaseseries
AT buzurovicivan variabilityinmrivsultrasoundmeasuresofprostatevolumeanditsimpactontreatmentrecommendationsforfavorableriskprostatecancerpatientsacaseseries
AT damatoantoniol variabilityinmrivsultrasoundmeasuresofprostatevolumeanditsimpactontreatmentrecommendationsforfavorableriskprostatecancerpatientsacaseseries
AT cormackroberta variabilityinmrivsultrasoundmeasuresofprostatevolumeanditsimpactontreatmentrecommendationsforfavorableriskprostatecancerpatientsacaseseries
AT fedorovandriyy variabilityinmrivsultrasoundmeasuresofprostatevolumeanditsimpactontreatmentrecommendationsforfavorableriskprostatecancerpatientsacaseseries
AT nguyenpaull variabilityinmrivsultrasoundmeasuresofprostatevolumeanditsimpactontreatmentrecommendationsforfavorableriskprostatecancerpatientsacaseseries