Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorHarvey, H
dc.contributor.authorOrton, MR
dc.contributor.authorMorgan, VA
dc.contributor.authorParker, C
dc.contributor.authorDearnaley, D
dc.contributor.authorFisher, C
dc.contributor.authordeSouza, NM
dc.date.accessioned2017-03-01T12:02:46Z
dc.date.issued2017-03-01
dc.identifier.citationThe British journal of radiology, 2017, 90 (1071), pp. 20160416 - ?
dc.identifier.issn0007-1285
dc.identifier.urihttps://repository.icr.ac.uk/handle/internal/431
dc.identifier.eissn1748-880X
dc.identifier.doi10.1259/bjr.20160416
dc.description.abstractOBJECTIVE: To establish the interobserver reproducibility of tumour volumetry on individual multiparametric (mp) prostate MRI sequences, validate measurements with histology and determine whether functional to morphological volume ratios reflect Gleason score. METHODS: 41 males with prostate cancer treated with prostatectomy (Cohort 1) or radical radiotherapy (Cohort 2), who had pre-treatment mpMRI [T2 weighted (T2W) MRI, diffusion-weighted (DW)-MRI and dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE)-MRI], were studied retrospectively. Dominant intraprostatic lesions (DIPLs) were manually delineated on each sequence and volumes were compared between observers (n = 40 analyzable) and with radical prostatectomy (n = 20). Volume ratios of DW-MRI and DCE-MRI to T2W MRI were documented and compared between Gleason grade 3 + 3, 3 + 4 and 4 + 3 or greater categories. RESULTS: Limits of agreement of DIPL volumes between observers were: T2W MRI 0.9, -1.1 cm3, DW-MRI 1.3, -1.7 cm3 and DCE-MRI 0.74, -0.89 cm3. In Cohort 1, T2W volumes overestimated fixed specimen histological volumes (+33% Observer 1, +16% Observer 2); DW- and DCE-MRI underestimated histological volume, the latter markedly so (-32% Observer 1, -79% Observer 2). Differences between T2W, DW- and DCE-MRI volumes were significant (p < 10-8). The ratio of DW-MRI volume (73.9 ± 18.1% Observer 1, 72.5 ± 21.9% Observer 2) and DCE-MRI volume (42.6 ± 24.6% Observer 1, 34.3 ± 24.9% Observer 2) to T2W volume was significantly different (p < 10-8), but these volume ratios did not differ between the Gleason grades. CONCLUSION: The low variability of the DIPL volume on T2W MRI between Observers and agreement with histology indicates its suitability for delineation of gross tumour volume for radiotherapy planning. The volume of cellular tumour represented by DW-MRI is greater than the vascular (DCE) abnormality; ratios of both to T2W volume are independent of Gleason score. Advances in knowledge: (1) Manual volume measurement of tumour is reproducible within 1 cm3 between observers on all sequences, confirming suitability across observers for radiotherapy planning. (2) Volumes derived on T2W MRI most accurately represent in vivo lesion volumes. (3) The proportion of cellular (DW-MRI) or vascular (DCE-MRI) volume to morphological (T2W MRI) volume is not affected by Gleason score.
dc.formatPrint-Electronic
dc.format.extent20160416 - ?
dc.languageeng
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherBRITISH INST RADIOLOGY
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
dc.subjectProstate
dc.subjectHumans
dc.subjectProstatic Neoplasms
dc.subjectContrast Media
dc.subjectImage Interpretation, Computer-Assisted
dc.subjectObserver Variation
dc.subjectMagnetic Resonance Imaging
dc.subjectDiffusion Magnetic Resonance Imaging
dc.subjectImage Enhancement
dc.subjectTumor Burden
dc.subjectRetrospective Studies
dc.subjectReproducibility of Results
dc.subjectAged
dc.subjectMale
dc.subjectNeoplasm Grading
dc.titleVolumetry of the dominant intraprostatic tumour lesion: intersequence and interobserver differences on multiparametric MRI.
dc.typeJournal Article
dcterms.dateAccepted2017-01-03
rioxxterms.versionofrecord10.1259/bjr.20160416
rioxxterms.licenseref.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2017-03
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Review
dc.relation.isPartOfThe British journal of radiology
pubs.issue1071
pubs.notesNo embargo
pubs.organisational-group/ICR
pubs.organisational-group/ICR/Primary Group
pubs.organisational-group/ICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions
pubs.organisational-group/ICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions/Closed research teams
pubs.organisational-group/ICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions/Closed research teams/Clinical Academic Radiotherapy (Dearnaley)
pubs.organisational-group/ICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions/Radiotherapy and Imaging
pubs.organisational-group/ICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions/Radiotherapy and Imaging/Magnetic Resonance
pubs.organisational-group/ICR/Primary Group/Royal Marsden Clinical Units
pubs.organisational-group/ICR
pubs.organisational-group/ICR/Primary Group
pubs.organisational-group/ICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions
pubs.organisational-group/ICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions/Closed research teams
pubs.organisational-group/ICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions/Closed research teams/Clinical Academic Radiotherapy (Dearnaley)
pubs.organisational-group/ICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions/Radiotherapy and Imaging
pubs.organisational-group/ICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions/Radiotherapy and Imaging/Magnetic Resonance
pubs.organisational-group/ICR/Primary Group/Royal Marsden Clinical Units
pubs.publication-statusPublished
pubs.volume90
pubs.embargo.termsNo embargo
icr.researchteamClinical Academic Radiotherapy (Dearnaley)
icr.researchteamMagnetic Resonance
dc.contributor.icrauthorDearnaley, David
dc.contributor.icrauthordeSouza, Nandita


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following collection(s)

Show simple item record

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0