Person:
Tuncali, Kemal

Profile Picture

Email Address

AA Acceptance Date

Birth Date

Research Projects

Organizational Units

Job Title

Last Name

Tuncali

First Name

Kemal

Name

Tuncali, Kemal
Author's Publications: search.filters.isAuthorOfPublication.864949ee-d334-4218-bc2b-0b9f808cf3d6

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
  • Thumbnail Image
    Publication
    Variability in MRI vs. ultrasound measures of prostate volume and its impact on treatment recommendations for favorable-risk prostate cancer patients: a case series
    (BioMed Central, 2014) Murciano-Goroff, Yonina; Wolfsberger, Luciant D; Parekh, Arti; Fennessy, Fiona; Tuncali, Kemal; Orio, Peter; Niedermayr, Thomas R; Suh, W Warren; Devlin, Phillip; Tempany, Clare Mary C; Sugar, Emily H Neubauer; O’Farrell, Desmond A; Steele, Graeme; O’Leary, Michael; Buzurovic, Ivan; Damato, Antonio L.; Cormack, Robert; Fedorov, Andriy; Nguyen, Paul
    Background: Prostate volume can affect whether patients qualify for brachytherapy (desired size ≥20 mL and ≤60 mL) and/or active surveillance (desired PSA density ≤0.15 for very low risk disease). This study examines variability in prostate volume measurements depending on imaging modality used (ultrasound versus MRI) and volume calculation technique (contouring versus ellipsoid) and quantifies the impact of this variability on treatment recommendations for men with favorable-risk prostate cancer. Methods: We examined 70 patients who presented consecutively for consideration of brachytherapy for favorable-risk prostate cancer who had volume estimates by three methods: contoured axial ultrasound slices, ultrasound ellipsoid (height × width × length × 0.523) calculation, and endorectal coil MRI (erMRI) ellipsoid calculation. Results: Average gland size by the contoured ultrasound, ellipsoid ultrasound, and erMRI methods were 33.99, 37.16, and 39.62 mLs, respectively. All pairwise comparisons between methods were statistically significant (all p < 0.015). Of the 66 patients who volumetrically qualified for brachytherapy on ellipsoid ultrasound measures, 22 (33.33%) did not qualify on ellipsoid erMRI or contoured ultrasound measures. 38 patients (54.28%) had PSA density ≤0.15 ng/dl as calculated using ellipsoid ultrasound volumes, compared to 34 (48.57%) and 38 patients (54.28%) using contoured ultrasound and ellipsoid erMRI volumes, respectively. Conclusions: The ultrasound ellipsoid and erMRI ellipsoid methods appeared to overestimate ultrasound contoured volume by an average of 9.34% and 16.57% respectively. 33.33% of those who qualified for brachytherapy based on ellipsoid ultrasound volume would be disqualified based on ultrasound contoured and/or erMRI ellipsoid volume. As treatment recommendations increasingly rely on estimates of prostate size, clinicians must consider method of volume estimation.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Publication
    Estimated effective dose of CT-guided percutaneous cryoablation of liver tumors
    (Elsevier BV, 2012) Park, Byung Kwan; Morrison, Paul; Tatli, Servet; Govindarajulu, Usha; Tuncali, Kemal; Judy, Philip Frank; Shyn, Paul; Silverman, Stuart
    Purpose: To estimate effective dose during CT-guided cryoablation of liver tumors, and to assess which procedural factors contribute most to dose. Materials and methods: Our institutional review board approved this retrospective, HIPAA-compliant study. A total of 20 CT-guided percutaneous liver tumor cryoablation procedures were performed in 18 patients. Effective dose was determined by multiplying the dose length product for each CT scan obtained during the procedure by a conversion factor (0.015 mSv/mGy-cm), and calculating the sum for each phase of the procedure: planning, targeting, monitoring, and post-ablation survey. Effective dose of each phase was compared using a repeated measures analysis. Using Spearman correlation coefficients, effective doses were correlated with procedural factors including number of scans, ratio of targeting distance to tumor size, anesthesia type, number of applicators, performance of ancillary procedures (hydrodissection and biopsy), and use of CT fluoroscopy. Results: Effective dose per procedure was 72 ± 18 mSv. The effective dose of targeting (37.5 ± 12.5 mSv) was the largest component compared to the effective dose of the planning phase (4.8 ± 2.2 mSv), the monitoring phase (25.5 ± 6.8 mSv), and the post-ablation survey (4.1 ± 1.9 mSv) phase (p < 0.05). Effective dose correlated positively only with the number of scans (p < 0.01). Conclusions: The effective dose of CT-guided percutaneous cryoablation of liver tumors can be substantial. Reducing the number of scans during the procedure is likely to have the greatest effect on lowering dose.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Publication
    Multimodality Non-rigid Image Registration for Planning, Targeting and Monitoring During CT-Guided Percutaneous Liver Tumor Cryoablation
    (Elsevier BV, 2010) Elhawary, Haytham; Oguro, Sota; Tuncali, Kemal; Morrison, Paul; Tatli, Servet; Shyn, Paul; Silverman, Stuart; Hata, Nobuhiko
    Rationale and Objectives: To develop non-rigid image registration between pre-procedure contrast enhanced MR images and intra-procedure unenhanced CT images, to enhance tumor visualization and localization during CT-guided liver tumor cryoablation procedures. Materials and Methods: After IRB approval, a non-rigid registration (NRR) technique was evaluated with different pre-processing steps and algorithm parameters and compared to a standard rigid registration (RR) approach. The Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC), Target Registration Error (TRE), 95% Hausdorff distance (HD) and total registration time (minutes) were compared using a two-sided Student’s t-test. The entire registration method was then applied during five CT-guided liver cryoablation cases with the intra-procedural CT data transmitted directly from the CT scanner, with both accuracy and registration time evaluated. Results: Selected optimal parameters for registration were section thickness of 5mm, cropping the field of view to 66% of its original size, manual segmentation of the liver, B-spline control grid of 5×5×5 and spatial sampling of 50,000 pixels. Mean 95% HD of 3.3mm (2.5x improvement compared to RR, p<0.05); mean DSC metric of 0.97 (13% increase); and mean TRE of 4.1mm (2.7x reduction) were measured. During the cryoablation procedure registration between the pre-procedure MR and the planning intra-procedure CT took a mean time of 10.6 minutes, the MR to targeting CT image took 4 minutes and MR to monitoring CT took 4.3 minutes. Mean registration accuracy was under 3.4mm. Conclusion: Non-rigid registration allowed improved visualization of the tumor during interventional planning, targeting and evaluation of tumor coverage by the ice ball. Future work is focused on reducing segmentation time to make the method more clinically acceptable.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Publication
    Image Registration of Pre-Procedural MRI and Intra-Procedural CT Images to Aid CT-Guided Percutaneous Cryoablation of Renal Tumors
    (Springer Nature, 2010) Oguro, Sota; Tuncali, Kemal; Elhawary, Haytham; Morrison, Paul; Hata, Nobuhiko; Silverman, Stuart
    Purpose: To determine whether a non-rigid registration (NRR) technique was more accurate than a rigid registration (RR) technique when fusing pre-procedural contrast-enhanced MR images to unenhanced CT images during CT-guided percutaneous cryoablation of renal tumors. Methods: Both RR and NRR were applied retrospectively to 11 CT-guided percutaneous cryoablation procedures performed to treat renal tumors (mean diameter; 23 mm). Pre-procedural contrast-enhanced MR images of the upper abdomen were registered to unenhanced intra-procedural CT images obtained just prior to the ablation. RRs were performed manually, and NRRs were performed using an intensity-based approach with affine and Basis-Spline techniques used for modeling displacement. Registration accuracy for each technique was assessed using the 95% Hausdorff distance (HD), Fiducial Registration Error (FRE) and the Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC). Statistical differences were analyzed using a two-sided Student’s t-test. Time for each registration technique was recorded. Results: Mean 95% HD (1.7 mm), FRE (1.7 mm) and DSC (0.96) using the NRR technique were significantly better than mean 95% HD (6.4 mm), FRE (5.0 mm) and DSC (0.88) using the RR technique (P < 0.05 for each analysis). Mean registration times of NRR and RR techniques were 15.2 and 5.7 min, respectively. Conclusions: The non-rigid registration technique was more accurate than the rigid registration technique when fusing pre-procedural MR images to intra-procedural unenhanced CT images. The non-rigid registration technique can be used to improve visualization of renal tumors during CT-guided cryoablation procedures.