Jin Tae Kwak1, Sheng Xu1, Bradford J Wood1, Baris Turkbey2, Peter L Choyke2, Peter A Pinto3, Shijun Wang4, Ronald M Summers4. 1. Center for Interventional Oncology, Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland 20892. 2. Molecular Imaging Program, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland 20892. 3. Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland 20892. 4. Imaging Biomarkers and Computer-Aided Diagnosis Laboratory, Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland 20892.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The authors propose a computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) system for prostate cancer to aid in improving the accuracy, reproducibility, and standardization of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). METHODS: The proposed system utilizes two MRI sequences [T2-weighted MRI and high-b-value (b = 2000 s/mm(2)) diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI)] and texture features based on local binary patterns. A three-stage feature selection method is employed to provide the most discriminative features. The authors included a total of 244 patients. Training the CAD system on 108 patients (78 MR-positive prostate cancers and 105 benign MR-positive lesions), two validation studies were retrospectively performed on 136 patients (68 MR-positive prostate cancers, 111 benign MR-positive lesions, and 117 MR-negative benign lesions). RESULTS: In distinguishing cancer from MR-positive benign lesions, an area under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.83 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.76-0.89] was achieved. For cancer vs MR-positive or MR-negative benign lesions, the authors obtained an AUC of 0.89 AUC (95% CI: 0.84-0.93). The performance of the CAD system was not dependent on the specific regions of the prostate, e.g., a peripheral zone or transition zone. Moreover, the CAD system outperformed other combinations of MRI sequences: T2W MRI, high-b-value DWI, and the standard apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) map of DWI. CONCLUSIONS: The novel CAD system is able to detect the discriminative texture features for cancer detection and localization and is a promising tool for improving the quality and efficiency of prostate cancer diagnosis.
PURPOSE: The authors propose a computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) system for prostate cancer to aid in improving the accuracy, reproducibility, and standardization of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). METHODS: The proposed system utilizes two MRI sequences [T2-weighted MRI and high-b-value (b = 2000 s/mm(2)) diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI)] and texture features based on local binary patterns. A three-stage feature selection method is employed to provide the most discriminative features. The authors included a total of 244 patients. Training the CAD system on 108 patients (78 MR-positive prostate cancers and 105 benign MR-positive lesions), two validation studies were retrospectively performed on 136 patients (68 MR-positive prostate cancers, 111 benign MR-positive lesions, and 117 MR-negative benign lesions). RESULTS: In distinguishing cancer from MR-positive benign lesions, an area under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.83 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.76-0.89] was achieved. For cancer vs MR-positive or MR-negative benign lesions, the authors obtained an AUC of 0.89 AUC (95% CI: 0.84-0.93). The performance of the CAD system was not dependent on the specific regions of the prostate, e.g., a peripheral zone or transition zone. Moreover, the CAD system outperformed other combinations of MRI sequences: T2W MRI, high-b-value DWI, and the standard apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) map of DWI. CONCLUSIONS: The novel CAD system is able to detect the discriminative texture features for cancer detection and localization and is a promising tool for improving the quality and efficiency of prostate cancer diagnosis.
Authors: Baris Turkbey; Haresh Mani; Vijay Shah; Ardeshir R Rastinehad; Marcelino Bernardo; Thomas Pohida; Yuxi Pang; Dagane Daar; Compton Benjamin; Yolanda L McKinney; Hari Trivedi; Celene Chua; Gennady Bratslavsky; Joanna H Shih; W Marston Linehan; Maria J Merino; Peter L Choyke; Peter A Pinto Journal: J Urol Date: 2011-09-25 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Vijay Shah; Baris Turkbey; Haresh Mani; Yuxi Pang; Thomas Pohida; Maria J Merino; Peter A Pinto; Peter L Choyke; Marcelino Bernardo Journal: Med Phys Date: 2012-07 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Yahui Peng; Yulei Jiang; Cheng Yang; Jeremy Bancroft Brown; Tatjana Antic; Ila Sethi; Christine Schmid-Tannwald; Maryellen L Giger; Scott E Eggener; Aytekin Oto Journal: Radiology Date: 2013-02-07 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Samuel G Armato; Henkjan Huisman; Karen Drukker; Lubomir Hadjiiski; Justin S Kirby; Nicholas Petrick; George Redmond; Maryellen L Giger; Kenny Cha; Artem Mamonov; Jayashree Kalpathy-Cramer; Keyvan Farahani Journal: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Date: 2018-11-10
Authors: Deukwoo Kwon; Isildinha M Reis; Adrian L Breto; Yohann Tschudi; Nicole Gautney; Olmo Zavala-Romero; Christopher Lopez; John C Ford; Sanoj Punnen; Alan Pollack; Radka Stoyanova Journal: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Date: 2018-09-06
Authors: Nathan Lay; Yohannes Tsehay; Matthew D Greer; Baris Turkbey; Jin Tae Kwak; Peter L Choyke; Peter Pinto; Bradford J Wood; Ronald M Summers Journal: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Date: 2017-06-12
Authors: Garry Choy; Omid Khalilzadeh; Mark Michalski; Synho Do; Anthony E Samir; Oleg S Pianykh; J Raymond Geis; Pari V Pandharipande; James A Brink; Keith J Dreyer Journal: Radiology Date: 2018-06-26 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Radka Stoyanova; Mandeep Takhar; Yohann Tschudi; John C Ford; Gabriel Solórzano; Nicholas Erho; Yoganand Balagurunathan; Sanoj Punnen; Elai Davicioni; Robert J Gillies; Alan Pollack Journal: Transl Cancer Res Date: 2016-08 Impact factor: 1.241