Prostate cancer tumor volume: Measurement with endorectal MR and MR spectroscopic imaging
Prostate cancer tumor volume: Measurement with endorectal MR and MR spectroscopic imaging
复制标题
DOI：
10.1148/radiol.2231010575
复制
发表时间：
2002-04-01
期刊：
影响因子：
19.7
通讯作者：
Hricak, H
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Coakley, FV;Kurhanewicz, J;Hricak, H
目的：探讨磁共振（MR）和三维磁共振（3D）光谱成像在前列腺癌肿瘤体积测量中的准确性。材料与方法：对37例根治性前列腺切除术前的患者进行直肠内磁共振和三维磁共振光谱成像。两台独立的读卡器记录外周区肿瘤结节的位置和体积。结果以阶梯切片组织病理肿瘤定位和体积测量为标准进行分析。采用Pearson相关系数评价肿瘤体积测量的准确性。P值采用随机效应模型计算。使用Bland-Altman回归分析来评估MR成像测量的肿瘤体积与真实肿瘤体积之间的系统偏差。对所有结节和大于0.50 cm的结节进行分析(3)。结果：51例外周区肿瘤结节的平均体积为0.79 cm(3)（范围0.02 ~ 3.70 cm(3)）。在31个大于0.50 cm的外周区肿瘤结节中，有20个（65%）和23个（74%）分别由两个阅读器检测到(3)。对于这些结节，MR成像、3D MR光谱成像以及两者结合测量的肿瘤体积均与组织病理学体积呈正相关（Pearson相关系数分别为0.49、0.59和0.55）；仅采用三维磁共振光谱成像和磁共振与三维磁共振光谱成像联合测量具有统计学意义（P < 0.05）。肿瘤体积越大，三种方法对肿瘤体积的估计越准确。结论：在磁共振成像中加入三维磁共振光谱成像，提高了前列腺癌肿瘤体积测量的总体准确性，尽管测量的可变性限制了一致的定量肿瘤体积估计，特别是对于小肿瘤。(c) rsna， 2002年
PURPOSE: To determine accuracy of magnetic resonance (MR) and three-dimensional (3D) MR spectroscopic imaging in prostate cancer tumor volume measurement.MATERIALS AND METHODS: Endorectal MR and 3D MR spectroscopic imaging were per-formed in 37 patients before radical prostatectomy. Two independent readers recorded peripheral zone tumor nodule location and volume. Results were analyzed with step-section histopathologic tumor localization and volume measurement as the standard. Accuracy of tumor volume measurement was assessed with the Pearson correlation coefficient. P values were calculated with a random effects model. Bland-Altman regression analysis was used to evaluate systematic bias between tumor volumes measured with MR imaging and true tumor volumes. Analyses were performed for all nodules and nodules greater than 0.50 cm(3).RESULTS: Mean volume of peripheral zone tumor nodules (n = 51) was 0.79 cm(3) (range, 0.02-3.70 cm(3)). Two readers detected 20 (65%) and 23 (74%) of 31 peripheral zone tumor nodules greater than 0.50 cm(3). For these nodules, measurements of tumor volume with MR imaging, 3D MR spectroscopic imaging, and a combination of both were all positively correlated with histopathologic volume (Pearson correlation coefficients of 0.49, 0.59, and 0.55, respectively); only measurements with 3D MR spectroscopic imaging and a combination of MR and 3D MR spectroscopic imaging demonstrated statistical significance (P < .05). Tumor volume estimation with all three methods was more accurate for higher tumor volumes.CONCLUSION: Addition of 3D MR spectroscopic imaging to MR imaging increases overall accuracy of prostate cancer tumor volume measurement, although measurement variability limits consistent quantitative tumor volume estimation, particularly for small tumors. (C) RSNA, 2002