Evaluation of tumor coverage after MR‐guided prostate focal laser ablation therapy. Issue 2 (7th December 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Knull, Eric; Oto, Aytekin; Eggener, Scott; Tessier, David; Guneyli, Serkan; Chatterjee, Aritrick; Fenster, Aaron
• Is Part Of: Medical physics. Volume 46:Issue 2(2019)
• Page Start: 800
• Page End: 810
• Publication Date: 2018-12-07
• Subjects: focal laser ablation -- focal therapy -- magnetic resonance imaging -- MRI -- prostate cancer -- registration -- segmentation -- thermal ablation -- thin plate spline; Medical physics -- Periodicals; Medical physics; Geneeskunde; Natuurkunde; Toepassingen; Biophysics; Periodicals; Periodicals; Electronic journals; 610.153
• DOI: 10.1002/mp.13292
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0094-2405

Abstract

Abstract : Purpose: Prostate cancer is the most common noncutaneous cancer among men in the USA.1 Focal laser thermal ablation (FLA) has the potential to control small tumors while preserving urinary and erectile function by leaving the neurovascular bundles and urethral sphincters intact. Accurate needle guidance is critical to the success of FLA. Multiparametric magnetic resonance images (mpMRI) can be used to identify targets, guide needles, and assess treatment outcomes. In this study, we evaluated the location of ablation zones relative to targeted lesions in 23 patients who underwent FLA therapy in a phase II trial. The ablation zone margins and unablated tumor volume were measured to determine whether complete coverage of each tumor was achieved, which would be considered a clinically successful ablation. Methods: Preoperative mpMRI was acquired for each patient 2–3 months preceding the procedure and the prostate and lesion(s) were manually contoured on 3 T T2‐weighted axial images. The prostate and ablation zone(s) were also manually contoured on postablation 1.5 T T1‐weighted contrast‐enhanced axial images acquired immediately after the procedure intraoperatively. The lesion surface was nonrigidly registered to the postablation image using an initial affine registration followed by nonrigid thin‐plate spline registration of the prostate surfaces. The margins between the registered lesion and ablation zone were calculated using a uniform spherical distribution of rays, and the volume of intersection was also calculated. Each prostate was contoured five times to determine the segmentation variability and its effect on intersection of the lesion and ablation zone. Results: Our study showed that the boundaries of the segmented tumor and ablation zone were close. Of the 23 lesions that were analyzed, 11 were completely covered by the ablation zone and 12 were partially covered. A shift of 1.0, 2.0, and 2.6 mm would result in 19, 21, and all tumors completely covered by the ablation zone, respectively. The median unablated tumor volume across all tumors was 0.1 mm 3 with an IQR of 3.7 mm 3, which was 0.2% of the median tumor volume (46.5 mm 3 with an IQR of 46.3 mm 3 ). The median extension of the tumors beyond the ablation zone, in cases which were partially ablated, was 0.9 mm (IQR of 1.3 mm), with the furthest tumor extending 2.6 mm. Conclusion: In all cases, the boundary of the tumor was close to the boundary of the ablation zone, and in some cases, the boundary of the ablation zone did not completely enclose the tumor. Our results suggest that some of the ablations were not clinically successful and that there is a need for more accurate needle tracking and guidance methods. Limitations of the study include errors in the registration and segmentation methods used as well as different voxel sizes and contrast between the registered T2 and T1 MRI sequences and asymmetric swelling of the prostate postprocedurally.