4D perfusion CT of prostate cancer for image-guided radiotherapy planning: A proof of concept study.
Aged
Biopsy, Large-Core Needle
Contrast Media
/ administration & dosage
Diffusion Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Feasibility Studies
Four-Dimensional Computed Tomography
/ methods
Humans
Image-Guided Biopsy
Male
Middle Aged
Neoplasm Grading
Perfusion Imaging
/ methods
Proof of Concept Study
Prospective Studies
Prostate
/ diagnostic imaging
Prostatic Neoplasms
/ diagnostic imaging
Radiation Dosage
Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted
/ methods
Radiotherapy, Image-Guided
/ methods
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2019
2019
Historique:
received:
08
08
2019
accepted:
08
11
2019
entrez:
20
12
2019
pubmed:
20
12
2019
medline:
9
4
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Advanced forms of prostate cancer (PCa) radiotherapy with either external beam therapy or brachytherapy delivery techniques aim for a focal boost and thus require accurate lesion localization and lesion segmentation for subsequent treatment planning. This study prospectively evaluated dynamic contrast-enhanced computed tomography (DCE-CT) for the detection of prostate cancer lesions in the peripheral zone (PZ) using qualitative and quantitative image analysis compared to multiparametric magnet resonance imaging (mpMRI) of the prostate. With local ethics committee approval, 14 patients (mean age, 67 years; range, 57-78 years; PSA, mean 8.1 ng/ml; range, 3.5-26.0) underwent DCE-CT, as well as mpMRI of the prostate, including standard T2, diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), and DCE-MRI sequences followed by transrectal in-bore MRI-guided prostate biopsy. Maximum intensity projections (MIP) and DCE-CT perfusion parameters (CTP) were compared between healthy and malignant tissue. Two radiologists independently rated image quality and the tumor lesion delineation quality of PCa using a five-point ordinal scale. MIP and CTP were compared using visual grading characteristics (VGC) and receiver operating characteristics (ROC)/area under the curve (AUC) analysis. The PCa detection rate ranged between 57 to 79% for the two readers for DCE-CT and was 92% for DCE-MRI. DCE-CT perfusion parameters in PCa tissue in the PZ were significantly different compared to regular prostate tissue and benign lesions. Image quality and lesion visibility were comparable between DCE-CT and DCE-MRI (VGC: AUC 0.612 and 0.651, p>0.05). Our preliminary results suggest that it is feasible to use DCE-CT for identification and visualization, and subsequent segmentation for focal radiotherapy approaches to PCa.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31856177
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0225673
pii: PONE-D-19-22379
pmc: PMC6922381
doi:
Substances chimiques
Contrast Media
0
Banques de données
figshare
['10.6084/m9.figshare.10548758']
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0225673Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
Ecancermedicalscience. 2014 Oct 27;8:476
pubmed: 25435904
Abdom Imaging. 2015 Mar;40(3):560-70
pubmed: 25193787
Rofo. 2014 May;186(5):501-7
pubmed: 24497092
Clin Prostate Cancer. 2005 Sep;4(2):109-12
pubmed: 16197611
Invest Radiol. 2012 Jan;47(1):41-8
pubmed: 21610505
Strahlenther Onkol. 2019 May;195(5):402-411
pubmed: 30478670
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012 Jun;198(6):1277-88
pubmed: 22623539
Strahlenther Onkol. 2019 May;195(5):374-382
pubmed: 30390115
Radiology. 2010 Sep;256(3):976-84
pubmed: 20663968
Eur J Radiol. 2016 Jan;85(1):261-267
pubmed: 26526901
Radiology. 2007 Oct;245(1):176-85
pubmed: 17717328
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012 Nov;199(5):1042-8
pubmed: 23096177
Radiother Oncol. 2018 Apr;127(1):74-80
pubmed: 29336835
Radiother Oncol. 2015 Apr;115(1):96-100
pubmed: 25796092
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2005 Nov;22(5):639-46
pubmed: 16200542
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012 Mar 1;82(3):e441-8
pubmed: 22284038
Strahlenther Onkol. 2019 Feb;195(2):145-152
pubmed: 30209535
Strahlenther Onkol. 2019 Feb;195(2):153-163
pubmed: 30315483
Radiat Oncol. 2012 May 23;7:75
pubmed: 22621752
Phys Med Biol. 2008 Jul 7;53(13):R193-241
pubmed: 18540047
Nat Rev Cancer. 2007 Dec;7(12):949-60
pubmed: 18034185
Radiat Oncol. 2018 Apr 12;13(1):64
pubmed: 29650035
Strahlenther Onkol. 2018 Oct;194(10):921-928
pubmed: 29846751
Am J Surg Pathol. 2016 Feb;40(2):244-52
pubmed: 26492179
Radiother Oncol. 2016 Aug;120(2):313-9
pubmed: 27237059
Eur Radiol. 2018 Apr;28(4):1634-1641
pubmed: 29134351
Radiother Oncol. 2015 Dec;117(3):509-14
pubmed: 26349588
Biometrics. 1977 Mar;33(1):159-74
pubmed: 843571
Eur Urol. 2016 Jan;69(1):16-40
pubmed: 26427566
Br J Radiol. 2003 Oct;76(910):678-89
pubmed: 14512327