BACKGROUND: There is little consensus on a standard approach to analysing bone scan images. The Bone Scan Index (BSI) is predictive of survival in patients with progressive prostate cancer (PCa), but the popularity of this metric is hampered by the tedium of the manual calculation. OBJECTIVE: Develop a fully automated method of quantifying the BSI and determining the clinical value of automated BSI measurements beyond conventional clinical and pathologic features. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We conditioned a computer-assisted diagnosis system identifying metastatic lesions on a bone scan to automatically compute BSI measurements. A training group of 795 bone scans was used in the conditioning process. Independent validation of the method used bone scans obtained ≤3 mo from diagnosis of 384 PCa cases in two large population-based cohorts. An experienced analyser (blinded to case identity, prior BSI, and outcome) scored the BSI measurements twice. We measured prediction of outcome using pretreatment Gleason score, clinical stage, and prostate-specific antigen with models that also incorporated either manual or automated BSI measurements. MEASUREMENTS: The agreement between methods was evaluated using Pearson's correlation coefficient. Discrimination between prognostic models was assessed using the concordance index (C-index). RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Manual and automated BSI measurements were strongly correlated (ρ=0.80), correlated more closely (ρ=0.93) when excluding cases with BSI scores≥10 (1.8%), and were independently associated with PCa death (p<0.0001 for each) when added to the prediction model. Predictive accuracy of the base model (C-index: 0.768; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.702-0.837) increased to 0.794 (95% CI, 0.727-0.860) by adding manual BSI scoring, and increased to 0.825 (95% CI, 0.754-0.881) by adding automated BSI scoring to the base model. CONCLUSIONS: Automated BSI scoring, with its 100% reproducibility, reduces turnaround time, eliminates operator-dependent subjectivity, and provides important clinical information comparable to that of manual BSI scoring.
BACKGROUND: There is little consensus on a standard approach to analysing bone scan images. The Bone Scan Index (BSI) is predictive of survival in patients with progressive prostate cancer (PCa), but the popularity of this metric is hampered by the tedium of the manual calculation. OBJECTIVE: Develop a fully automated method of quantifying the BSI and determining the clinical value of automated BSI measurements beyond conventional clinical and pathologic features. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We conditioned a computer-assisted diagnosis system identifying metastatic lesions on a bone scan to automatically compute BSI measurements. A training group of 795 bone scans was used in the conditioning process. Independent validation of the method used bone scans obtained ≤3 mo from diagnosis of 384 PCa cases in two large population-based cohorts. An experienced analyser (blinded to case identity, prior BSI, and outcome) scored the BSI measurements twice. We measured prediction of outcome using pretreatment Gleason score, clinical stage, and prostate-specific antigen with models that also incorporated either manual or automated BSI measurements. MEASUREMENTS: The agreement between methods was evaluated using Pearson's correlation coefficient. Discrimination between prognostic models was assessed using the concordance index (C-index). RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Manual and automated BSI measurements were strongly correlated (ρ=0.80), correlated more closely (ρ=0.93) when excluding cases with BSI scores≥10 (1.8%), and were independently associated with PCa death (p<0.0001 for each) when added to the prediction model. Predictive accuracy of the base model (C-index: 0.768; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.702-0.837) increased to 0.794 (95% CI, 0.727-0.860) by adding manual BSI scoring, and increased to 0.825 (95% CI, 0.754-0.881) by adding automated BSI scoring to the base model. CONCLUSIONS: Automated BSI scoring, with its 100% reproducibility, reduces turnaround time, eliminates operator-dependent subjectivity, and provides important clinical information comparable to that of manual BSI scoring.
Authors: G Berglund; K F Eriksson; B Israelsson; T Kjellström; F Lindgärde; I Mattiasson; J A Nilsson; L Stavenow Journal: J Intern Med Date: 1996-06 Impact factor: 8.989
Authors: May Sadik; Iman Hamadeh; Pierre Nordblom; Madis Suurkula; Peter Höglund; Mattias Ohlsson; Lars Edenbrandt Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2008-11-07 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: J Manjer; S Carlsson; S Elmståhl; B Gullberg; L Janzon; M Lindström; I Mattisson; G Berglund Journal: Eur J Cancer Prev Date: 2001-12 Impact factor: 2.497
Authors: P Sabbatini; S M Larson; A Kremer; Z F Zhang; M Sun; H Yeung; M Imbriaco; I Horak; M Conolly; C Ding; P Ouyang; W K Kelly; H I Scher Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1999-03 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: May Sadik; Madis Suurkula; Peter Höglund; Andreas Järund; Lars Edenbrandt Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2008-03-29 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: M Imbriaco; S M Larson; H W Yeung; O R Mawlawi; Y Erdi; E S Venkatraman; H I Scher Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 1998-07 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Aseem Anand; Michael J Morris; Reza Kaboteh; Lena Båth; May Sadik; Peter Gjertsson; Milan Lomsky; Lars Edenbrandt; David Minarik; Anders Bjartell Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2015-08-27 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Andrew J Armstrong; Aseem Anand; Lars Edenbrandt; Eva Bondesson; Anders Bjartell; Anders Widmark; Cora N Sternberg; Roberto Pili; Helen Tuvesson; Örjan Nordle; Michael A Carducci; Michael J Morris Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2018-07-01 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Vahé Barsegian; Stefan P Müller; Daniel Möckel; Peter A Horn; Andreas Bockisch; Monika Lindemann Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2016-10-08 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Aseem Anand; Michael J Morris; Reza Kaboteh; Mariana Reza; Elin Trägårdh; Naofumi Matsunaga; Lars Edenbrandt; Anders Bjartell; Steven M Larson; David Minarik Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2016-07-21 Impact factor: 10.057