How does prostate biopsy guidance error impact pathologic cancer risk assessment?

Peter R. Martin; Mena Gaed; José A. Gómez; Madeleine Moussa; Eli Gibson; Derek W. Cool; Joseph L. Chin; Stephen Pautler; Aaron Fenster; Aaron D. Ward

doi:10.1117/12.2217334

18 March 2016 How does prostate biopsy guidance error impact pathologic cancer risk assessment?

Peter R. Martin, Mena Gaed, José A. Gómez, Madeleine Moussa, Eli Gibson, Derek W. Cool, Joseph L. Chin, Stephen Pautler, Aaron Fenster, Aaron D. Ward

Author Affiliations +

Proceedings Volume 9786, Medical Imaging 2016: Image-Guided Procedures, Robotic Interventions, and Modeling; 97861J (2016) https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2217334
Event: SPIE Medical Imaging, 2016, San Diego, California, United States

Abstract

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted, 3D transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided "fusion" prostate biopsy aims to reduce the 21–47% false negative rate of clinical 2D TRUS-guided sextant biopsy, but still has a substantial false negative rate. This could be improved via biopsy needle target optimization, accounting for uncertainties due to guidance system errors, image registration errors, and irregular tumor shapes. As an initial step toward the broader goal of optimized prostate biopsy targeting, in this study we elucidated the impact of biopsy needle delivery error on the probability of obtaining a tumor sample, and on the core involvement. These are both important parameters to patient risk stratification and the decision for active surveillance vs. definitive therapy. We addressed these questions for cancer of all grades, and separately for high grade (≥ Gleason 4+3) cancer. We used expert-contoured gold-standard prostatectomy histology to simulate targeted biopsies using an isotropic Gaussian needle delivery error from 1 to 6 mm, and investigated the amount of cancer obtained in each biopsy core as determined by histology. Needle delivery error resulted in variability in core involvement that could influence treatment decisions; the presence or absence of cancer in 1/3 or more of each needle core can be attributed to a needle delivery error of 4 mm. However, our data showed that by making multiple biopsy attempts at selected tumor foci, we may increase the probability of correctly characterizing the extent and grade of the cancer.

Citation Download Citation

Peter R. Martin, Mena Gaed, José A. Gómez, Madeleine Moussa, Eli Gibson, Derek W. Cool, Joseph L. Chin, Stephen Pautler, Aaron Fenster, and Aaron D. Ward "How does prostate biopsy guidance error impact pathologic cancer risk assessment?", Proc. SPIE 9786, Medical Imaging 2016: Image-Guided Procedures, Robotic Interventions, and Modeling, 97861J (18 March 2016); https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2217334

ACCESS THE FULL ARTICLE

INSTITUTIONAL
Select your institution to access the SPIE Digital Library.

SELECT YOUR INSTITUTION

PERSONAL
Sign in with your SPIE account to access your personal subscriptions or to use specific features such as save to my library, sign up for alerts, save searches, etc.

PERSONAL SIGN IN

No SPIE Account? Create one

PURCHASE THIS CONTENT

SUBSCRIBE TO DIGITAL LIBRARY

50 downloads per 1-year subscription

Members: $195

Non-members: $335 ADD TO CART

25 downloads per 1 - year subscription

Members: $145

Non-members: $250 ADD TO CART

PURCHASE SINGLE ARTICLE

Includes PDF, HTML & Video, when available

Members: $17.00

Non-members: $21.00 ADD TO CART

PROCEEDINGS
7 PAGES

DOWNLOAD PAPER SAVE TO MY LIBRARY

GET CITATION

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

Get copyright permission Get copyright permission on Copyright Marketplace

KEYWORDS

Biopsy

Tumors

Cancer

Prostate

Magnetic resonance imaging

Monte Carlo methods

Principal component analysis

Show All Keywords

Keywords/Phrases

Search In:

Publication Years