Purpose We compared prostate tumor boundaries on magnetic resonance imaging and radical prostatectomy histological assessment using detailed software assisted co-registration to define an optimal treatment margin for achieving complete tumor destruction during image guided focal ablation. Materials and Methods Included in study were 33 patients who underwent 3 Tesla magnetic resonance imaging before radical prostatectomy. A radiologist traced lesion borders on magnetic resonance imaging and assigned a suspicion score of 2 to 5. Three-dimensional reconstructions were created from high resolution digitalized slides of radical prostatectomy specimens and co-registered to imaging using advanced software. Tumors were compared between histology and imaging by the Hausdorff distance and stratified by the magnetic resonance imaging suspicion score, Gleason score and lesion diameter. Cylindrical volume estimates of treatment effects were used to define the optimal treatment margin. Results Three-dimensional software based registration with magnetic resonance imaging was done in 46 histologically confirmed cancers. Imaging underestimated tumor size with a maximal discrepancy between imaging and histological boundaries for a given tumor of an average ± SD of 1.99 ± 3.1 mm, representing 18.5% of the diameter on imaging. Boundary underestimation was larger for lesions with an imaging suspicion score 4 or greater (mean 3.49 ± 2.1 mm, p <0.001) and a Gleason score of 7 or greater (mean 2.48 ± 2.8 mm, p = 0.035). A simulated cylindrical treatment volume based on the imaging boundary missed an average 14.8% of tumor volume compared to that based on the histological boundary. A simulated treatment volume based on a 9 mm treatment margin achieved complete histological tumor destruction in 100% of patients. Conclusions Magnetic resonance imaging underestimates histologically determined tumor boundaries, especially for lesions with a high imaging suspicion score and a high Gleason score. A 9 mm treatment margin around a lesion visible on magnetic resonance imaging would consistently ensure treatment of the entire histological tumor volume during focal ablative therapy.

ObjectiveTo report medium-term oncological outcomes in men receiving primary focal treatment with high-intensity focused ultrasonography ( HIFU) for prostate cancer (PCa). ConclusionsFocal HIFU for PCa is a feasible therapeutic strategy, with acceptable survival and oncological results and a reduction in the 5-year retreatment rates over the last decade. Re-do focal treatment is a feasible technique whose functional and oncological outcomes have still to be evaluated.

Objective To evaluate the agreement between prostate tumour volume determined using multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and that determined by histological assessment, using detailed software-assisted co-registration. Materials and Methods A total of 37 patients who underwent 3T multiparametric MRI (T2-weighted imaging [T2WI], diffusion-weighted imaging [DWI]/apparent diffusion coefficient [ADC], dynamic contrast-enhanced [DCE] imaging) were included. A radiologist traced the borders of suspicious lesions on T2WI and ADC and assigned a suspicion score of between 2 and 5, while a uropathologist traced the borders of tumours on histopathological photographs. Software was used to co-register MRI and three-dimensional digital reconstructions of radical prostatectomy specimens and to compute imaging and histopathological volumes. Agreement in volumes between MRI and histology was assessed using Bland–Altman plots and stratified by tumour characteristics. Results Among 50 tumours, the mean differences (95% limits of agreement) in MRI relative to histology were −32% (−128 to +65%) on T2WI and −47% (−143 to +49%) on ADC. For all tumour subsets, volume underestimation was more marked on ADC maps (mean difference ranging from −57 to −16%) than on T2WI (mean difference ranging from −45 to +2%). The 95% limits of agreement were wide for all comparisons, with the lower 95% limit ranging between −77 and −143% across assessments. Volume underestimation was more marked for tumours with a Gleason score ≥7 or a MRI suspicion score 4 or 5. Conclusion Volume estimates of prostate cancer using MRI tended to substantially underestimate histopathological volumes, with a wide variability in extent of underestimation across cases. These findings have implications for efforts to use MRI to guide risk assessment.