Person:

Fennessy, Fiona

Loading...
Profile Picture

Email Address

AA Acceptance Date

Birth Date

Research Projects

Organizational Units

Job Title

Last Name

Fennessy

First Name

Fiona

Name

Fennessy, Fiona

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • 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.

  • Publication

    Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Prostate: Repeatability of Volume and Apparent Diffusion Coefficient Quantification

    (Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2017) Fedorov, Andriy; Vangel, Mark; Tempany, Clare M.; Fennessy, Fiona

    Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the repeatability of a region of interest (ROI) volume and mean apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) in standard-of-care 3 T multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) of the prostate obtained with the use of endorectal coil. Materials and Methods This prospective study was Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act compliant, with institutional review board approval and written informed consent. Men with confirmed or suspected treatment-naive prostate cancer scheduled for mpMRI were offered a repeat mpMRI within 2 weeks. Regions of interest corresponding to the whole prostate gland, the entire peripheral zone (PZ), normal PZ, and suspected tumor ROI (tROI) on axial T2-weighted, dynamic contrast-enhanced subtract, and ADC images were annotated and assessed using Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) v2. Repeatability of the ROI volume for each of the analyzed image types and mean ROI ADC was summarized with repeatability coefficient (RC) and RC%. Results: A total of 189 subjects were approached to participate in the study. Of 40 patients that gave initial agreement, 15 men underwent 2 mpMRI examinations and completed the study. Peripheral zone tROIs were identified in 11 subjects. Tumor ROI volume was less than 0.5 mL in 8 of 11 subjects. PI-RADS categories were identical between baseline-repeat studies in 11/15 subjects and differed by 1 point in 4/15. Peripheral zone tROI volume RC (RC%) was 233 mm3 (71%) on axial T2-weighted, 422 mm3 (112%) on ADC, and 488 mm3 (119%) on dynamic contrast-enhanced subtract. Apparent diffusion coefficient ROI mean RC (RC%) were 447 × 10−6 mm−2/s (42%) in PZ tROI and 471 × 10−6 mm−2/s (30%) in normal PZ. Significant difference in repeatability of the tROI volume across series was observed (P < 0.005). The mean ADC RC% was lower than volume RC% for tROI ADC (P < 0.05). Conclusions: PI-RADS v2 overall assessment was highly repeatable. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging sequences differ in volume measurement repeatability. The mean tROI ADC is more repeatable compared with tROI volume in ADC. Repeatability of prostate ADC is comparable with that in other abdominal organs.