Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25711199›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of urology2015

Image Guided Focal Therapy for Magnetic Resonance Imaging Visible Prostate Cancer: Defining a 3-Dimensional Treatment Margin Based on Magnetic Resonance Imaging Histology Co-Registration Analysis.

Julien Le Nobin, Andrew B Rosenkrantz, Arnauld Villers, Clément Orczyk, Fang-Ming Deng, Jonathan Melamed, Artem Mikheev, Henry Rusinek, Samir S Taneja

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of urology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04113811 (Microwave Needle Thermoablation for Treatment of Localized Prostate Cancer Under the Guidance of MRI-Ultrasound Fusion Organbased Tracking), which is not on this map. Cited by 77 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
77citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT04113811 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2019, after this paper: background citation

Microwave Needle Thermoablation for Treatment of Localized Prostate Cancer Under the Guidance of MRI-Ultrasound Fusion Organbased Tracking: A Phase 2 Trial.

TypeinterventionalSponsorChinese University of Hong KongRan2019 to 2023Enrolled30ConditionsProstate CancerArmsBiomedical TATO3® Microwave needle thermoablation device (Koelis, Grenoble, France)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

77 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Biopsy strategies in the era of mpMRI: a comprehensive review.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2025
    Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

17 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Julien Le NobinDivision of Urologic Oncology, Department of Urology, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, New York; Departments of Urology, University Hospital of Lille, Lille and Unités Mixtes de Recherche 6301-CERVOxy Group, University Hospital of Caen, Caen, France. Electronic address: julien.lenobin@gmail.com.
Andrew B RosenkrantzDepartment of Radiology, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, New York.
Arnauld VillersDepartments of Urology, University Hospital of Lille, Lille and Unités Mixtes de Recherche 6301-CERVOxy Group, University Hospital of Caen, Caen, France.
Clément OrczykDivision of Urologic Oncology, Department of Urology, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, New York.
Fang-Ming DengDepartment of Pathology, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, New York.
Jonathan MelamedDepartment of Pathology, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, New York.
Artem MikheevDepartment of Radiology, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, New York.
Henry RusinekDepartment of Radiology, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, New York.
Samir S TanejaDivision of Urologic Oncology, Department of Urology, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, New York.

Funding

Vaccine FacilityP30CA016087 · NCI · NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE · PI ADRIANA HEGUY · 1985 to 2026
$83.1M
INSTITUTIONAL CLINICAL AND TRANSLATIONAL SCIENCE AWARDUL1RR029893 · NCRR · NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE · PI CRONSTEIN, BRUCE NEIL · 2009 to 2011
$17.7M
Institutional Clinical and Translational Science AwardUL1TR000038 · NCATS · NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE · PI CRONSTEIN, BRUCE NEIL · 2012 to 2014
$16.8M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000038NCI NIH HHS P30 CA016087NCRR NIH HHS UL1 RR029893
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeWe 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

methodsIncluded 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.

resultsThree-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.

conclusionsMagnetic 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.

Indexed as

Imaging, Three-DimensionalAgedHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm GradingProstateProstatectomyProstatic NeoplasmsSurgery, Computer-AssistedTreatment OutcomeTumor Burdencomputer-assistedimage processingmagnetic resonance imagingpathologyprostatic neoplasmsrisk

Identifiers

PMID25711199
PMCPMC4726648

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.