Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

3D-Reconstructed Contact Surface Area and Tumour Volume on Magnetic Resonance Imaging Improve the Prediction of Extraprostatic Extension of Prostate Cancer

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Digital Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study is to determine whether the volume and contact surface area (CSA) of a tumour with an adjacent prostate capsule on MRI in a three-dimensional (3D) model that can predict side-specific extraprostatic extension (EPE) at radical prostatectomy (RP). Patients with localised prostate cancer (PCa) who underwent robot-assisted RP between July 2015 and March 2021 were included in this retrospective study. MRI-based 3D prostate models incorporating the PCa volume and location were reconstructed. The tumour volume and surface variables were extracted. For the prostate-to-tumour and tumour-to-prostate CSAs, the areas in which the distances were ≤ 1, ≤ 2, ≤ 3, ≤ 4, and ≤ 5 mm were defined, and their surface (cm2) were determined. Differences in prostate sides with and without pathological EPE were analysed. Multivariable logistic regression analysis to find independent predictors of EPE. Overall, 75/302 (25%) prostate sides showed pathological EPE. Prostate sides with EPE had higher cT-stage, higher PSA density, higher percentage of positive biopsy cores, higher biopsy Gleason scores, higher radiological tumour stage, larger tumour volumes, larger prostate CSA, and larger tumour CSA (all p < 0.001). Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed that the radiological tumour stage (p = 0.001), tumour volume (p < 0.001), prostate CSA (p < 0.001), and tumour CSA (p ≤ 0.001) were independent predictors of pathological EPE. A 3D reconstruction of tumour locations in the prostate improves prediction of extraprostatic extension. Tumours with a higher 3D-reconstructed volume, a higher surface area of tumour in contact with the prostate capsule, and higher surface area of prostate capsule in contact with the tumour are at increased risk of side-specific extraprostatic extension.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, HV, upon reasonable request.

References

  1. Yossepowitch O, Briganti A, Eastham JA, et al: Positive Surgical Margins After Radical Prostatectomy: A Systematic Review and Contemporary Update. Eur. Urol. 2014; 65: 303–313. Available at: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0302283813007963.

  2. Ficarra V, Novara G, Rosen RC, et al: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Studies Reporting Urinary Continence Recovery After Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy. Eur. Urol. 2012; 62: 405–417. Available at: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S030228381200629X.

  3. Ficarra V, Novara G, Ahlering TE, et al: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Studies Reporting Potency Rates After Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy. Eur. Urol. 2012; 62: 418–430. Available at: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0302283812006306.

  4. Tewari A, Sooriakumaran P, Bloch DA, et al: Positive surgical margin and perioperative complication rates of primary surgical treatments for prostate cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing retropubic, laparoscopic, and robotic prostatectomy. Eur. Urol. 2012; 62: 1–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Soeterik TFW, van Melick HHE, Dijksman LM, et al: Nerve Sparing during Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy Increases the Risk of Ipsilateral Positive Surgical Margins. J. Urol. 2020; 204: 91–95.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Öbek C, Louis P, Civantos F, et al: Comparison of digital rectal examination and biopsy results with the radical prostatectomy specimen. J. Urol. 1999; 161: 494–499.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Zanelli E, Giannarini G, Cereser L, et al: Head-to-head comparison between multiparametric MRI, the partin tables, memorial sloan kettering cancer center nomogram, and CAPRA score in predicting extraprostatic cancer in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019; 50: 1604–1613. Available at: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30957321/.

  8. de Rooij M, Hamoen EHJ, Witjes JA, et al: Accuracy of Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Local Staging of Prostate Cancer: A Diagnostic Meta-analysis. Eur. Urol. 2016; 70: 233–245.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Martini A, Gupta A, Lewis SC, et al: Development and internal validation of a side-specific, multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-based nomogram for the prediction of extracapsular extension of prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2018; 122: 1025–1033. Available at: http://doi.wiley.com/https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.14353.

  10. Soeterik TFW, van Melick HHE, Dijksman LM, et al: Development and External Validation of a Novel Nomogram to Predict Side-specific Extraprostatic Extension in Patients with Prostate Cancer Undergoing Radical Prostatectomy. Eur. Urol. Oncol. 2020: epub ahead of print. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2020.08.008.

  11. Baco E, Rud E, Vlatkovic L, et al: Predictive value of magnetic resonance imaging determined tumor contact length for extracapsular extension of prostate cancer. J. Urol. 2015; 193: 466–472.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Krishna S, Lim CS, McInnes MDF, et al: Evaluation of MRI for diagnosis of extraprostatic extension in prostate cancer. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2018; 47: 176–185. Available at: http://doi.wiley.com/https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.25729.

  13. Kim T-H, Woo S, Han S, et al: The Diagnostic Performance of the Length of Tumor Capsular Contact on MRI for Detecting Prostate Cancer Extraprostatic Extension: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Korean J. Radiol. 2020; 21: 684. Available at: https://www.kjronline.org/DOIx.php?id = https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2019.0842.

  14. Sugano D, Sidana A, Jain AL, et al: Index tumor volume on MRI as a predictor of clinical and pathologic outcomes following radical prostatectomy. Int. Urol. Nephrol. 2019; 51: 1349–1355. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-019-02168-4.

  15. Rud E, Diep L and Baco E: A prospective study evaluating indirect MRI-signs for the prediction of extraprostatic disease in patients with prostate cancer: tumor volume, tumor contact length and tumor apparent diffusion coefficient. World J. Urol. 2018; 36: 629–637. Available at: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29349572/.

  16. Rosenkrantz AB, Shanbhogue AK, Wang A, et al: Length of capsular contact for diagnosing extraprostatic extension on prostate MRI: Assessment at an optimal threshold. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2016; 43: 990–997.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Mendez G, Foster BR, Li X, et al: Endorectal MR imaging of prostate cancer: Evaluation of tumor capsular contact length as a sign of extracapsular extension. Clin. Imaging 2018; 50: 280–285. Available at: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29727817/.

  18. Turkbey B, Rosenkrantz AB, Haider MA, et al: Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2.1: 2019 Update of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2. Eur. Urol. 2019; 76: 340–351. Available at: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0302283819301800.

  19. Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB, et al: The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma. Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 2015; 40: 1. Available at: http://journals.lww.com/00000478-900000000-98357.

  20. Kikinis R, Pieper SD and Vosburgh KG: 3D Slicer: A Platform for Subject-Specific Image Analysis, Visualization, and Clinical Support. In: Intraoperative Imaging and Image-Guided Therapy. Springer New York 2014; pp 277–289.

  21. Danielsson PE: Euclidean distance mapping. Comput. Graph. Image Process. 1980; 14: 227–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Zapała P, Dybowski B, Bres-Niewada E, et al: Predicting side-specific prostate cancer extracapsular extension: a simple decision rule of PSA, biopsy, and MRI parameters. Int. Urol. Nephrol. 2019; 51: 1545–1552. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31190297.

  23. Bratan F, Melodelima C, Souchon R, et al: How Accurate Is Multiparametric MR Imaging in Evaluation of Prostate Cancer Volume? Radiology 2015; 275: 144–154. Available at: www.rsna.org/rsnarights.

  24. Priester A, Natarajan S, Khoshnoodi P, et al: Magnetic Resonance Imaging Underestimation of Prostate Cancer Geometry: Use of Patient Specific Molds to Correlate Images with Whole Mount Pathology. J. Urol. 2017; 197: 320–326. Available at: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27484386/.

  25. Schlomm T, Tennstedt P, Huxhold C, et al: Neurovascular Structure-adjacent Frozen-section Examination (NeuroSAFE) Increases Nerve-sparing Frequency and Reduces Positive Surgical Margins in Open and Robot-assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy: Experience After 11 069 Consecutive Patients. Eur. Urol. 2012; 62: 333–340. Available at: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0302283812005337.

  26. Bianchi L, Chessa F, Angiolini A, et al: The Use of Augmented Reality to Guide the Intraoperative Frozen Section During Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy. Eur. Urol. 2021; 0. Available at: http://www.europeanurology.com/article/S0302283821018613/fulltext.

  27. Porpiglia F, Checcucci E, Amparore D, et al: Three-dimensional Elastic Augmented-reality Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy Using Hyperaccuracy Three-dimensional Reconstruction Technology: A Step Further in the Identification of Capsular Involvement. Eur. Urol. 2019; 76: 505–514. Available at: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30979636/.

  28. Shin T, Ukimura O and Gill IS: Three-dimensional Printed Model of Prostate Anatomy and Targeted Biopsy-proven Index Tumor to Facilitate Nerve-sparing Prostatectomy. Eur. Urol. 2016; 69: 377–379. Available at: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S030228381500932X.

  29. Darr C, Finis F, Wiesenfarth M, et al: Three-dimensional Magnetic Resonance Imaging–based Printed Models of Prostate Anatomy and Targeted Biopsy-proven Index Tumor to Facilitate Patient-tailored Radical Prostatectomy—A Feasibility Study. Eur. Urol. Oncol. 2020.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Netherlands Cancer Institute – Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, Netherlands

    Hans Veerman, Judith H. Sluijter, Jari A. van der Eijk, Esther Wit, Henk G. van der Poel & Pim J. van Leeuwen

  2. Department of Urology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers Location Boelelaan, Amsterdam, Netherlands

    Hans Veerman, Tim M. van der Sluis, Jakko A. Nieuwenhuijzen & André N. Vis

  3. Prostate Cancer Network the Netherlands, Amsterdam, Netherlands

    Hans Veerman, Ton A. Roeleveld, Tim M. van der Sluis, Jakko A. Nieuwenhuijzen, Esther Wit, André N. Vis, Henk G. van der Poel & Pim J. van Leeuwen

  4. Department of Radiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni Van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, Netherlands

    Thierry N. Boellaard

  5. Verwelius 3D Lab, The Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni Van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, Netherlands

    Judith H. Sluijter, Jari A. van der Eijk, Maarten J. A. van Alphen & Robert L. P. van Veen

  6. Department of Urology, Noord-West Ziekenhuisgroep, Alkmaar, Netherlands

    Ton A. Roeleveld

  7. Department of Clinical Physics and Instrumentation, The Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni Van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Alkmaar, Netherlands

    Erik-Jan Rijkhorst

  8. Department of Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam University Medical Centers Location Boelelaan, Amsterdam, Netherlands

    Martijn W. Heymans

  9. Department of Radiology, Diakonessenhuis Utrecht, Netherlands

    Caroline M. A. Hoeks

  10. The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066CX, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Hans Veerman

Authors
  1. Hans Veerman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Caroline M. A. Hoeks
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Judith H. Sluijter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jari A. van der Eijk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Thierry N. Boellaard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Ton A. Roeleveld
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Tim M. van der Sluis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Jakko A. Nieuwenhuijzen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Esther Wit
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Erik-Jan Rijkhorst
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Martijn W. Heymans
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Maarten J. A. van Alphen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Robert L. P. van Veen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. André N. Vis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Henk G. van der Poel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  16. Pim J. van Leeuwen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hans Veerman.

Ethics declarations

Ethics Approval

This study was approved by the local institutional review board (IRBd19-293). The need for informed consent was waived.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 22 KB)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Veerman, H., Hoeks, C.M.A., Sluijter, J.H. et al. 3D-Reconstructed Contact Surface Area and Tumour Volume on Magnetic Resonance Imaging Improve the Prediction of Extraprostatic Extension of Prostate Cancer. J Digit Imaging 36, 486–496 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-022-00756-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-022-00756-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation