↓ Skip to main content

Accuracy of tumor segmentation from multi-parametric prostate MRI and 18F-choline PET/CT for focal prostate cancer therapy applications

Overview of attention for article published in EJNMMI Research, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#30 of 589)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
55 Mendeley
Title
Accuracy of tumor segmentation from multi-parametric prostate MRI and 18F-choline PET/CT for focal prostate cancer therapy applications
Published in
EJNMMI Research, March 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13550-018-0377-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Morand Piert, Prasad R. Shankar, Jeffrey Montgomery, Lakshmi Priya Kunju, Virginia Rogers, Javed Siddiqui, Thekkelnaycke Rajendiran, Jason Hearn, Arvin George, Xia Shao, Matthew S. Davenport

Abstract

The study aims to assess the accuracy of multi-parametric prostate MRI (mpMRI) and18F-choline PET/CT in tumor segmentation for clinically significant prostate cancer.18F-choline PET/CT and 3 T mpMRI were performed in 10 prospective subjects prior to prostatectomy. All subjects had a single biopsy-confirmed focus of Gleason ≥ 3+4 cancer. Two radiologists (readers 1 and 2) determined tumor boundaries based on in vivo mpMRI sequences, with clinical and pathologic data available.18F-choline PET data were co-registered to T2-weighted 3D sequences and a semi-automatic segmentation routine was used to define tumor volumes. Registration of whole-mount surgical pathology to in vivo imaging was conducted utilizing two ex vivo prostate specimen MRIs, followed by gross sectioning of the specimens within a custom-made 3D-printed plastic mold. Overlap and similarity coefficients of manual segmentations (seg1, seg2) and18F-choline-based segmented lesions (seg3) were compared to the pathologic reference standard. All segmentation methods greatly underestimated the true tumor volumes. Human readers (seg1, seg2) and the PET-based segmentation (seg3) underestimated an average of 79, 80, and 58% of the tumor volumes, respectively. Combining segmentation volumes (union of seg1, seg2, seg3 = seg4) decreased the mean underestimated tumor volume to 42% of the true tumor volume. When using the combined segmentation with 5 mm contour expansion, the mean underestimated tumor volume was significantly reduced to 0.03 ± 0.05 mL (2.04 ± 2.84%). Substantial safety margins up to 11-15 mm were needed to include all tumors when the initial segmentation boundaries were drawn by human readers or the semi-automated18F-choline segmentation tool. Combining MR-based human segmentations with the metabolic information based on18F-choline PET reduced the necessary safety margin to a maximum of 9 mm to cover all tumors entirely. To improve the outcome of focal therapies for significant prostate cancer, it is imperative to recognize the full extent of the underestimation of tumor volumes by mpMRI. Combining metabolic information from18F-choline with MRI-based segmentation can improve tumor coverage. However, this approach requires confirmation in further clinical studies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 55 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 16%
Student > Master 6 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 9%
Other 3 5%
Other 6 11%
Unknown 15 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 31%
Engineering 11 20%
Computer Science 3 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 4%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 17 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 April 2018.
All research outputs
#3,267,562
of 23,963,877 outputs
Outputs from EJNMMI Research
#30
of 589 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#66,730
of 333,056 outputs
Outputs of similar age from EJNMMI Research
#2
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,963,877 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 589 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 333,056 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.