Table 1
Imaging protocol.
| Parallel imaging technique: Grappa, Factor 2 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T1/T2 | Orientation | Acquisition time | Pixel size in mm. | # slices | Field of View (mm) | Slice thickness (mm) | Repetition time (ms) | Echo Time (ms) |
| T2 | Sagittal | 1:49 | 0.6*0.6 | 26 | 260 * 260 | 3.5 | 7700.0 | 133.0 |
| DW | Transversal | 5:47 | 2.7*2.7 | 42 | 350 * 285 | 4.0 | 9900 | 67.0 |
| T2 | Transversal | 5:05 | 0.6*0.6 | 56 | 260 * 236 | 3.0 | 11250.0 | 124.0 |
| T2 | Coronal | 2:50 | 0.6*0.6 | 40 | 260 * 260 | 3.5 | 14010 | 124.0 |
| T1: fat suppression | Transversal | 0:18 | 1.0*1.0 | 52 | 320 * 260 | 3.0 | 4.26 | 2.09 |
Figure 1
Artemis Eigen Fusion system [14].
Figure 2
Outlining of the prostate on the Artemis system.
Figure 3
Precise sampling of a ROI [25].
Figure 4
Study database set-up.
Table 2
Patient demographics.
| Variable | Statistic | All |
|---|---|---|
| Age | N | 102 |
| Mean | 66.2 | |
| Std | 6.56 | |
| Median | 67.5 | |
| IQR | (61.0; 71.0) | |
| Range | (52.0; 80.0) | |
| PSA | N | 102 |
| Mean | 9.5 | |
| Std | 6.23 | |
| Median | 7.1 | |
| IQR | (5.8; 11.8) | |
| Range | (1.1; 38.0) | |
| Prostate Volume | N | 102 |
| Mean | 5837.3 | |
| Std | 58305.12 | |
| Median | 60.5 | |
| IQR | (40.1; 80.7) | |
| Range | (4.9; 588917) | |
| Prior Biopsy | ||
| No | n/N (%) | 48/99 (48.48%) |
| Yes | n/N (%) | 51/99 (51.52%) |
| Tumor risk group (according to JAMA article) | ||
| No tumor | n/N (%) | 57/101 (56.44%) |
| Low risk | n/N (%) | 21/101 (20.79%) |
| Intermediate risk | n/N (%) | 9/101 (8.91%) |
| High risk | n/N (%) | 14/101 (13.86%) |
| Highest Gleason score | ||
| No tumor | n/N (%) | 57/102 (55.88%) |
| 3 | n/N (%) | 1/102 (0.98%) |
| 6 | n/N (%) | 16/102 (15.69%) |
| 7 | n/N (%) | 20/102 (19.61%) |
| 8 | n/N (%) | 7/102 (6.86%) |
| 9 | n/N (%) | 1/102 (0.98%) |
Figure 5
Fusion cancer detection rate per Gleason score (in percentages).
Figure 6
Benign causes of diffusion restriction.
Figure 7
Fusion biopsy versus at random sampling.
Figure 8
Frequency of carcinoma detection.
Table 3
2015 Fusion biopsy: observed frequencies of tumors per segment (transition zone TZ versus non-transition zone nTZ).
| Right-TZ | Right-nTZ | Left-TZ | Left-nTZ |
|---|---|---|---|
| 22.37% (17/76) | 27.63% (21/76) | 19.74% (15/76) | 30.26% (23/76) |
Table 4
2005 At random biopsy: observed frequencies of tumor detection per segment.
| Transition zone | Non-transition zone | |
|---|---|---|
| US-visible lesion | 41.44% | 58.55% |
| No US-visible lesion | 41.84% | 58.15% |
Table 5
Comparison with the at random results from 2005.
| Gleason score | Modality | Result 2005: at random sampling | Result 2015: Fusion biopsies | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| All | without US lesion | 140/381 (36.75) | 45/102 (44.12) | 0.1737 |
| All | with US lesion | 150/303 (49.50) | 0.3463 | |
| All | all at random (sum) | 290/684 (42.40) | 0.7432 | |
| G<=6 | without US lesion | 78/381 (20.47) | 17/102 (16.67) | 0.3904 |
| G<=6 | with US lesion | 63/303 (20.79) | 0.3654 | |
| G<=6 | all at random (sum) | 141/684 (20.61) | 0.3534 | |
| G>6 | without US lesion | 62/381 (16.27) | 28/102 (27.45) | 0.0100 |
| G>6 | with US lesion | 87/303 (28.71) | 0.8069 | |
| G>6 | all at random (sum) | 149/684 (21.78) | 0.2012 | |
| P-values from chi-square test | ||||
Figure 9
Our fusion results versus their at random/fusion results.