Automated Computer-derived Prostate Volumes from MR Imaging Data: Comparison with Radiologist-derived MR Imaging and Pathologic Specimen Volumes
Automated Computer-derived Prostate Volumes from MR Imaging Data: Comparison with Radiologist-derived MR Imaging and Pathologic Specimen Volumes
复制标题
DOI：
10.1148/radiol.11110266
复制
发表时间：
2012-01-01
期刊：
影响因子：
19.7
通讯作者：
Rofsky, Neil M.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Bulman, Julie C.;Toth, Robert;Rofsky, Neil M.
目的：比较前列腺体积（PV）的自动化计算机生成的多功能主动形状模型（MFA）进行3-T磁共振（MR）成像与其他方法的PV assessment.Materials和方法的估计，病理标本作为参考标准：所有受试者提供书面知情同意书，这符合健康保险责任法案和机构审查委员会批准的研究。91例患者（平均年龄，59岁;范围，42-84岁）的新鲜称重的直肠切除术标本作为参考标准。由两名独立的阅片员使用标准椭圆体公式从MR图像手动计算PV。平面PV由两名独立研究者使用手动绘制的感兴趣区域生成的腺体面积计算。通过在轴向T2加权前列腺MR图像范围内汇总计算机计算的前列腺面积，确定MFA的PV计算机自动评估。线性回归，线性混合效应模型，一致性相关系数，和Bland-Altman限制的协议被用来比较体积estimations.Results：MFA衍生的PV与病理标本PV的相关性最好（斜率，0.888）。与标本PV相比，两个独立读数器的测面导出体积产生的斜率为0.864和0.804。与平面测量PV相比，椭球公式导出的PV的斜率最接近1。手动MR成像和MFA PV估计有很高的一致性相关系数与病理标本。结论：MFA轴向T2加权MR成像提供了一个自动化和有效的工具，以评估PV。与子宫切除标本相比，MFA和MR成像平面测量都需要调整以优化PV准确度。(C)RSNA，2012年
Purpose:To compare prostate gland volume (PV) estimation of automated computer-generated multifeature active shape models (MFAs) performed with 3-T magnetic resonance (MR) imaging with that of other methods of PV assessment, with pathologic specimens as the reference standard.Materials and Methods:All subjects provided written informed consent for this HIPAA-compliant and institutional review board-approved study. Freshly weighed prostatectomy specimens from 91 patients (mean age, 59 years; range, 42-84 years) served as the reference standard. PVs were manually calculated by two independent readers from MR images by using the standard ellipsoid formula. Planimetry PV was calculated from gland areas generated by two independent investigators by using manually drawn regions of interest. Computer-automated assessment of PV with an MFA was determined by the aggregate computer-calculated prostate area over the range of axial T2-weighted prostate MR images. Linear regression, linear mixed-effects models, concordance correlation coefficients, and Bland-Altman limits of agreement were used to compare volume estimation methods.Results:MFA-derived PVs had the best correlation with pathologic specimen PVs (slope, 0.888). Planimetry derived volumes produced slopes of 0.864 and 0.804 for two independent readers when compared with specimen PVs. Ellipsoid formula-derived PVs had slopes closest to one when compared with planimetry PVs. Manual MR imaging and MFA PV estimates had high concordance correlation coefficients with pathologic specimens.Conclusion:MFAs with axial T2-weighted MR imaging provided an automated and efficient tool with which to assess PV. Both MFAs and MR imaging planimetry require adjustments for optimized PV accuracy when compared with prostatectomy specimens. (C) RSNA, 2012