Cargando…
Comparison of Manual and Semi-Automatic [(18)F]PSMA-1007 PET Based Contouring Techniques for Intraprostatic Tumor Delineation in Patients With Primary Prostate Cancer and Validation With Histopathology as Standard of Reference
PURPOSE: Accurate contouring of intraprostatic gross tumor volume (GTV) is pivotal for successful delivery of focal therapies and for biopsy guidance in patients with primary prostate cancer (PCa). Contouring of GTVs, using 18-Fluor labeled tracer prostate specific membrane antigen positron emission...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7750498/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33365271 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2020.600690 |
_version_ | 1783625499830910976 |
---|---|
author | Spohn, Simon K. B. Kramer, Maria Kiefer, Selina Bronsert, Peter Sigle, August Schultze-Seemann, Wolfgang Jilg, Cordula A. Sprave, Tanja Ceci, Lara Fassbender, Thomas F. Nicolay, Nils H. Ruf, Juri Grosu, Anca L. Zamboglou, Constantinos |
author_facet | Spohn, Simon K. B. Kramer, Maria Kiefer, Selina Bronsert, Peter Sigle, August Schultze-Seemann, Wolfgang Jilg, Cordula A. Sprave, Tanja Ceci, Lara Fassbender, Thomas F. Nicolay, Nils H. Ruf, Juri Grosu, Anca L. Zamboglou, Constantinos |
author_sort | Spohn, Simon K. B. |
collection | PubMed |
description | PURPOSE: Accurate contouring of intraprostatic gross tumor volume (GTV) is pivotal for successful delivery of focal therapies and for biopsy guidance in patients with primary prostate cancer (PCa). Contouring of GTVs, using 18-Fluor labeled tracer prostate specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography ([(18)F]PSMA-1007/PET) has not been examined yet. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Ten Patients with primary PCa who underwent [(18)F]PSMA-1007 PET followed by radical prostatectomy were prospectively enrolled. Coregistered histopathological gross tumor volume (GTV-Histo) was used as standard of reference. PSMA-PET images were contoured on two ways: (1) manual contouring with PET scaling SUVmin-max: 0–10 was performed by three teams with different levels of experience. Team 1 repeated contouring at a different time point, resulting in n = 4 manual contours. (2) Semi-automatic contouring approaches using SUVmax thresholds of 20–50% were performed. Interobserver agreement was assessed for manual contouring by calculating the Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC) and for all approaches sensitivity, specificity were calculated by dividing the prostate in each CT slice into four equal quadrants under consideration of histopathology as standard of reference. RESULTS: Manual contouring yielded an excellent interobserver agreement with a median DSC of 0.90 (range 0.87–0.94). Volumes derived from scaling SUVmin-max 0–10 showed no statistically significant difference from GTV-Histo and high sensitivities (median 87%, range 84–90%) and specificities (median 96%, range 96–100%). GTVs using semi-automatic segmentation applying a threshold of 20–40% of SUVmax showed no significant difference in absolute volumes to GTV-Histo, GTV-SUV50% was significantly smaller. Best performing semi-automatic contour (GTV-SUV20%) achieved high sensitivity (median 93%) and specificity (median 96%). There was no statistically significant difference to SUVmin-max 0–10. CONCLUSION: Manual contouring with PET scaling SUVmin-max 0–10 and semi-automatic contouring applying a threshold of 20% of SUVmax achieved high sensitivities and very high specificities and are recommended for [(18)F]PSMA-1007 PET based focal therapy approaches. Providing high specificities, semi-automatic approaches applying thresholds of 30–40% of SUVmax are recommend for biopsy guidance. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7750498 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-77504982020-12-22 Comparison of Manual and Semi-Automatic [(18)F]PSMA-1007 PET Based Contouring Techniques for Intraprostatic Tumor Delineation in Patients With Primary Prostate Cancer and Validation With Histopathology as Standard of Reference Spohn, Simon K. B. Kramer, Maria Kiefer, Selina Bronsert, Peter Sigle, August Schultze-Seemann, Wolfgang Jilg, Cordula A. Sprave, Tanja Ceci, Lara Fassbender, Thomas F. Nicolay, Nils H. Ruf, Juri Grosu, Anca L. Zamboglou, Constantinos Front Oncol Oncology PURPOSE: Accurate contouring of intraprostatic gross tumor volume (GTV) is pivotal for successful delivery of focal therapies and for biopsy guidance in patients with primary prostate cancer (PCa). Contouring of GTVs, using 18-Fluor labeled tracer prostate specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography ([(18)F]PSMA-1007/PET) has not been examined yet. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Ten Patients with primary PCa who underwent [(18)F]PSMA-1007 PET followed by radical prostatectomy were prospectively enrolled. Coregistered histopathological gross tumor volume (GTV-Histo) was used as standard of reference. PSMA-PET images were contoured on two ways: (1) manual contouring with PET scaling SUVmin-max: 0–10 was performed by three teams with different levels of experience. Team 1 repeated contouring at a different time point, resulting in n = 4 manual contours. (2) Semi-automatic contouring approaches using SUVmax thresholds of 20–50% were performed. Interobserver agreement was assessed for manual contouring by calculating the Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC) and for all approaches sensitivity, specificity were calculated by dividing the prostate in each CT slice into four equal quadrants under consideration of histopathology as standard of reference. RESULTS: Manual contouring yielded an excellent interobserver agreement with a median DSC of 0.90 (range 0.87–0.94). Volumes derived from scaling SUVmin-max 0–10 showed no statistically significant difference from GTV-Histo and high sensitivities (median 87%, range 84–90%) and specificities (median 96%, range 96–100%). GTVs using semi-automatic segmentation applying a threshold of 20–40% of SUVmax showed no significant difference in absolute volumes to GTV-Histo, GTV-SUV50% was significantly smaller. Best performing semi-automatic contour (GTV-SUV20%) achieved high sensitivity (median 93%) and specificity (median 96%). There was no statistically significant difference to SUVmin-max 0–10. CONCLUSION: Manual contouring with PET scaling SUVmin-max 0–10 and semi-automatic contouring applying a threshold of 20% of SUVmax achieved high sensitivities and very high specificities and are recommended for [(18)F]PSMA-1007 PET based focal therapy approaches. Providing high specificities, semi-automatic approaches applying thresholds of 30–40% of SUVmax are recommend for biopsy guidance. Frontiers Media S.A. 2020-12-07 /pmc/articles/PMC7750498/ /pubmed/33365271 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2020.600690 Text en Copyright © 2020 Spohn, Kramer, Kiefer, Bronsert, Sigle, Schultze-Seemann, Jilg, Sprave, Ceci, Fassbender, Nicolay, Ruf, Grosu and Zamboglou http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. |
spellingShingle | Oncology Spohn, Simon K. B. Kramer, Maria Kiefer, Selina Bronsert, Peter Sigle, August Schultze-Seemann, Wolfgang Jilg, Cordula A. Sprave, Tanja Ceci, Lara Fassbender, Thomas F. Nicolay, Nils H. Ruf, Juri Grosu, Anca L. Zamboglou, Constantinos Comparison of Manual and Semi-Automatic [(18)F]PSMA-1007 PET Based Contouring Techniques for Intraprostatic Tumor Delineation in Patients With Primary Prostate Cancer and Validation With Histopathology as Standard of Reference |
title | Comparison of Manual and Semi-Automatic [(18)F]PSMA-1007 PET Based Contouring Techniques for Intraprostatic Tumor Delineation in Patients With Primary Prostate Cancer and Validation With Histopathology as Standard of Reference |
title_full | Comparison of Manual and Semi-Automatic [(18)F]PSMA-1007 PET Based Contouring Techniques for Intraprostatic Tumor Delineation in Patients With Primary Prostate Cancer and Validation With Histopathology as Standard of Reference |
title_fullStr | Comparison of Manual and Semi-Automatic [(18)F]PSMA-1007 PET Based Contouring Techniques for Intraprostatic Tumor Delineation in Patients With Primary Prostate Cancer and Validation With Histopathology as Standard of Reference |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of Manual and Semi-Automatic [(18)F]PSMA-1007 PET Based Contouring Techniques for Intraprostatic Tumor Delineation in Patients With Primary Prostate Cancer and Validation With Histopathology as Standard of Reference |
title_short | Comparison of Manual and Semi-Automatic [(18)F]PSMA-1007 PET Based Contouring Techniques for Intraprostatic Tumor Delineation in Patients With Primary Prostate Cancer and Validation With Histopathology as Standard of Reference |
title_sort | comparison of manual and semi-automatic [(18)f]psma-1007 pet based contouring techniques for intraprostatic tumor delineation in patients with primary prostate cancer and validation with histopathology as standard of reference |
topic | Oncology |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7750498/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33365271 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2020.600690 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT spohnsimonkb comparisonofmanualandsemiautomatic18fpsma1007petbasedcontouringtechniquesforintraprostatictumordelineationinpatientswithprimaryprostatecancerandvalidationwithhistopathologyasstandardofreference AT kramermaria comparisonofmanualandsemiautomatic18fpsma1007petbasedcontouringtechniquesforintraprostatictumordelineationinpatientswithprimaryprostatecancerandvalidationwithhistopathologyasstandardofreference AT kieferselina comparisonofmanualandsemiautomatic18fpsma1007petbasedcontouringtechniquesforintraprostatictumordelineationinpatientswithprimaryprostatecancerandvalidationwithhistopathologyasstandardofreference AT bronsertpeter comparisonofmanualandsemiautomatic18fpsma1007petbasedcontouringtechniquesforintraprostatictumordelineationinpatientswithprimaryprostatecancerandvalidationwithhistopathologyasstandardofreference AT sigleaugust comparisonofmanualandsemiautomatic18fpsma1007petbasedcontouringtechniquesforintraprostatictumordelineationinpatientswithprimaryprostatecancerandvalidationwithhistopathologyasstandardofreference AT schultzeseemannwolfgang comparisonofmanualandsemiautomatic18fpsma1007petbasedcontouringtechniquesforintraprostatictumordelineationinpatientswithprimaryprostatecancerandvalidationwithhistopathologyasstandardofreference AT jilgcordulaa comparisonofmanualandsemiautomatic18fpsma1007petbasedcontouringtechniquesforintraprostatictumordelineationinpatientswithprimaryprostatecancerandvalidationwithhistopathologyasstandardofreference AT spravetanja comparisonofmanualandsemiautomatic18fpsma1007petbasedcontouringtechniquesforintraprostatictumordelineationinpatientswithprimaryprostatecancerandvalidationwithhistopathologyasstandardofreference AT cecilara comparisonofmanualandsemiautomatic18fpsma1007petbasedcontouringtechniquesforintraprostatictumordelineationinpatientswithprimaryprostatecancerandvalidationwithhistopathologyasstandardofreference AT fassbenderthomasf comparisonofmanualandsemiautomatic18fpsma1007petbasedcontouringtechniquesforintraprostatictumordelineationinpatientswithprimaryprostatecancerandvalidationwithhistopathologyasstandardofreference AT nicolaynilsh comparisonofmanualandsemiautomatic18fpsma1007petbasedcontouringtechniquesforintraprostatictumordelineationinpatientswithprimaryprostatecancerandvalidationwithhistopathologyasstandardofreference AT rufjuri comparisonofmanualandsemiautomatic18fpsma1007petbasedcontouringtechniquesforintraprostatictumordelineationinpatientswithprimaryprostatecancerandvalidationwithhistopathologyasstandardofreference AT grosuancal comparisonofmanualandsemiautomatic18fpsma1007petbasedcontouringtechniquesforintraprostatictumordelineationinpatientswithprimaryprostatecancerandvalidationwithhistopathologyasstandardofreference AT zamboglouconstantinos comparisonofmanualandsemiautomatic18fpsma1007petbasedcontouringtechniquesforintraprostatictumordelineationinpatientswithprimaryprostatecancerandvalidationwithhistopathologyasstandardofreference |