Literature DB >> 10334109

Artificial neural network analysis (ANNA) of prostatic transrectal ultrasound.

T Loch1, I Leuschner, C Genberg, K Weichert-Jacobsen, F Küppers, E Yfantis, M Evans, V Tsarev, M Stöckle.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Our purpose was to determine the diagnostic potential of a new, computerized method of interpreting transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) information by artificial neural network analysis (ANNA). This method was developed to resolve the current dilemma of visual differentiation between benign and malignant tissue on TRUS. To train and objectively evaluate ANNA, a new precise method of computerized virtual correlation of preoperative ultrasound findings and radical prostatectomy histopathology was devised. After training with this pathologically confirmed digitized TRUS information, ANNA was tested in a blinded study.
METHODS: Following radical prostatectomy, 289 pathology whole-mount sections of 61 patients were correlated digitally with the corresponding TRUS slices. Specific selection of TRUS areas unequivocally identified on the correlated digitized pathohistology resulted in 553 pathology-confirmed representations (samples). Of these, 53 were used for training and 500 were subjected to blind analysis by ANNA.
RESULTS: ANNA classified 378 (99%) of the 381 benign pathology-confirmed samples correctly as benign. The false-positive rate was 1% (n = 3). Of the 119 pathology-confirmed malignant samples, 94 (79%) were classified correctly; 25 (21%) were falsely classified as normal. Out of all 119 cancers, ANNA classified 60 (71%) of the hypoechoic cancers as malignant and 24 (29%) as benign. Surprisingly, 34 (97%) of the isoechoic cancers were correctly classified by ANNA, missing only one sample.
CONCLUSIONS: The introduction of ANNA enhanced the accuracy of TRUS prostate cancer identification. Although not all malignant areas were detected, cancer was detected in each patient. The ability to detect isoechoic cancerous lesions appears to be the essential innovation over conventional TRUS interpretation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10334109     DOI: 10.1002/(sici)1097-0045(19990515)39:3<198::aid-pros8>3.0.co;2-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Prostate        ISSN: 0270-4137            Impact factor:   4.104


  24 in total

1.  [Transrectal ultrasound of the prostate. Current status and prospects].

Authors:  M Zacharias; K V Jenderka; H Heynemann; P Fornara
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2002-11       Impact factor: 0.639

Review 2.  Artificial neural networks and prostate cancer--tools for diagnosis and management.

Authors:  Xinhai Hu; Henning Cammann; Hellmuth-A Meyer; Kurt Miller; Klaus Jung; Carsten Stephan
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2013-02-12       Impact factor: 14.432

Review 3.  [Sonographic imaging of the prostate].

Authors:  B Schlenker; D A Clevert; G Salomon
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2014-07       Impact factor: 0.639

4.  A 12-year follow-up of ANNA/C-TRUS image-targeted biopsies in patients suspicious for prostate cancer.

Authors:  Theodoros Tokas; Björn Grabski; Udo Paul; Leif Bäurle; Tillmann Loch
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2017-12-23       Impact factor: 4.226

5.  [Innovative imaging in urology: fascination and future. Yesterday, today, and tomorrow].

Authors:  T Loch; G Schneider
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 0.639

Review 6.  Urologic imaging for localized prostate cancer in 2007.

Authors:  Tillmann Loch
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2007-03-21       Impact factor: 4.226

7.  Standards, innovations, and controversies in urologic imaging.

Authors:  Pat Fox Fulgham; Tillmann Loch
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2018-05       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 8.  Internal Fusion: exact correlation of transrectal ultrasound images of the prostate by detailed landmarks over time for targeted biopsies or follow-up.

Authors:  Yanqi Xie; Theodoros Tokas; Björn Grabski; Tillmann Loch
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2017-12-27       Impact factor: 4.226

9.  Pre-operative prediction of advanced prostatic cancer using clinical decision support systems: accuracy comparison between support vector machine and artificial neural network.

Authors:  Sang Youn Kim; Sung Kyoung Moon; Dae Chul Jung; Sung Il Hwang; Chang Kyu Sung; Jeong Yeon Cho; Seung Hyup Kim; Jiwon Lee; Hak Jong Lee
Journal:  Korean J Radiol       Date:  2011-08-24       Impact factor: 3.500

10.  Image-based clinical decision support for transrectal ultrasound in the diagnosis of prostate cancer: comparison of multiple logistic regression, artificial neural network, and support vector machine.

Authors:  Hak Jong Lee; Sung Il Hwang; Seok-Min Han; Seong Ho Park; Seung Hyup Kim; Jeong Yeon Cho; Chang Gyu Seong; Gheeyoung Choe
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2009-12-17       Impact factor: 5.315

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.