Article Figures & Data
Figures
- FIGURE 1.
(A) Series of transparency tracings of histologic sections of prostate gland (blue outline) and tumor (red outline) from 1 patient in this study. Contours were drawn by hand from original histologic slides stained with hematoxylin and eosin. (B) Corresponding transparency tracings that have been transferred to 1-mm graph paper, with tumor demarcated by small black marks in each 1-mm square that corresponded to presence of tumor. Text is mirrored, because images were flipped to correspond to standard imaging display. Individual squares were determined by interpreting pathologist and confirmed by another pathologist. (C) Axial 18F-DCFPyL PET/CT representative images from same patient. High uptake in right-sided dominant tumor nodule in prostate, extending from base to apex, is similar to pathologic results. PET images were selected to show overall extent of abnormal uptake but do not specifically correspond in slice-dependent manner with histopathologic slides.
- FIGURE 2.
Box plot of absolute differences between PET-derived tumor volume and TV-Histo across segmentation methods. Asterisk represents extreme values; circles are outlier values.
- FIGURE 3.
Box plot of relative differences between PET-derived tumor volume and TV-Histo across segmentation methods. Asterisks represent extreme values; circles are outlier values.
Tables
Characteristic Data Age (y) 61 (54.5–67) PSA (ng/mL) 9.3 (5.7–19.7) Gleason score 7 7 (28%) 8 2 (8%) 9 16 (64%) Staging pT2N0 3 pT3aN0 10 pT3aN1 5 pT3bN0 5 pT3bN1 2 Race White 18 (72%) African American 5 (20%) Other 2 (8%) Surgical margin Positive 8 (32%) Negative 17 (68%) Extraprostatic invasion Positive 20 (80%) Negative 5 (20%) Seminal vesicle invasion Positive 7 (28%) Negative 18 (72%) TV-Histo (cm3) 2.03 (1.16–3.36) Prostate weight (g) 40 (33.84–51.3) Prostate SUVmax 2.07 (1.77–2.72) SUVmean 1.65 (1.33–2.09) SUVpeak 1.90 (1.64–2.38) Tumor SUVmax 9.84 (6.62–22.61) SUVpeak 7.10 (4.61–14.97) PSA = prostate-specific antigen.
Continuous data are median and IQR, and categoric data are frequency (as number of patients) and percentage.
- TABLE 2.
Absolute and Relative Percentage Difference of PET-Derived Tumor Volume with Pathology Across Segmentation Methods
Segmentation method Threshold Absolute difference Relative difference (%) P SUVmax SUV30% 4.14 (0.92 to 13.50) 142 (48 to 735) <0.001 SUV40% 0.3 (−0.48 to +3.46) 40 (−24 to +257) 0.09 SUV50% −0.3 (−1.04 to +0.92) −25 (−60 to +78) 0.53 SUV60% −0.9 (−1.71 to −0.16) −57 (−73 to −4) <0.001 SUV70% −1.43 (−2.55 to +0.55) −78 (−85 to −60) <0.001 Adaptive A30% 2.14 (0.46 to 5.2) 61.8 (0.41 to 419.7) 0.001 A40% 0.19 (−0.71 to +2.01) 7.6 (−30.4 to +164.5) 0.23 A50% −0.49 (−1.23 to +0.61) −28.3 (−61.2 to −35.6) 0.056 A60% −1.18 (−2.17 to −0.49) −61.1 (−76.5 to −32.1) <0.001 A70% −1.64 (−2.69 to −1.64) −78 (−89.3 to −72.6) <0.001 Manual 2.49 (0.42 to 4.11) 130 (25 to 216) Data are median followed by IQR in parentheses.
Derivation method Segmentation method Threshold TPR P Histopathologic 0.04 (0.02–0.09) PET SUVmax SUV30% 0.21 (0.25–0.09) <0.001 SUV40% 0.07 (0.04–0.17) 0.08 SUV50% 0.03 (0.02–0.08) 0.40 SUV60% 0.02 (0.01–0.04) <0.001 SUV70% 0.01 (0.01–0.02) <0.001 Adaptive A30% 0.11 (0.06–0.19) 0.002 A40% 0.06 (0.03–0.11) 0.29 A50% 0.03 (0.02–0.05) 0.045 A60% 0.02 (0.01–0.03) <0.001 A70% 0.01 (0.00–0.01) <0.001 Manual 0.08 (0.04–0.20) <0.001 TPR data are median followed by IQR in parentheses.
Supplemental Data
Files in this Data Supplement:
In this issue
Jump to section
Related Articles
Cited By...
- No citing articles found.