Scientific Reports (Aug 2024)

Evaluation of prostate cancer detection using micro-ultrasound versus MRI through co-registration to whole-mount pathology

  • Jake Pensa,
  • Wayne Brisbane,
  • Adam Kinnaird,
  • David Kuppermann,
  • Griffith Hughes,
  • Derrick Ushko,
  • Alan Priester,
  • Samantha Gonzalez,
  • Robert Reiter,
  • Arnold Chin,
  • Anthony Sisk,
  • Ely Felker,
  • Leonard Marks,
  • Rory Geoghegan

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-69804-7
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 14, no. 1
pp. 1 – 14

Abstract

Read online

Abstract Micro-ultrasound has recently been introduced as a low-cost alternative to multi-parametric MRI for imaging prostate cancer. Early clinical studies have demonstrated promising results; however, robust validation via comparison with whole-mount pathology has yet to be achieved. Due to micro-ultrasound probe design and tissue deformation during scanning, it is difficult to accurately correlate micro-ultrasound imaging planes with ground truth whole-mount pathology slides. In this study, we developed a multi-step methodology to co-register micro-ultrasound and MRI to whole-mount pathology. The three-step process had a registration error of 3.90 ± 0.11 mm and consists of: (1) micro-ultrasound image reconstruction, (2) 3D landmark registration of micro-ultrasound to MRI, and (3) 2D capsule registration of MRI to whole-mount pathology. This process was then used in a preliminary reader study to compare the diagnostic accuracy of micro-ultrasound and MRI in 15 patients who underwent radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. Micro-ultrasound was found to have equivalent performance to retrospective MRI review for index lesion detection (91.7% vs. 80%), while demonstrating an increased detection of tumor extent (52.5% vs. 36.7%) with similar false positive regions-of-interest (38.3% vs. 40.8%). Prospective MRI review had reduced detection of index lesions (73.3%) and tumor extent (18.9%) but improved false positive regions-of-interest (22.7%) relative to micro-ultrasound and retrospective MRI. Further evaluation is needed with a larger sample size.

Keywords