Literature DB >> 26192734

Computer-extracted Features Can Distinguish Noncancerous Confounding Disease from Prostatic Adenocarcinoma at Multiparametric MR Imaging.

Geert J S Litjens1, Robin Elliott1, Natalie N C Shih1, Michael D Feldman1, Thiele Kobus1, Christina Hulsbergen-van de Kaa1, Jelle O Barentsz1, Henkjan J Huisman1, Anant Madabhushi1.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To determine the best features to discriminate prostate cancer from benign disease and its relationship to benign disease class and cancer grade.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The institutional review board approved this study and waived the need for informed consent. A retrospective cohort of 70 patients (age range, 48-70 years; median, 62 years), all of whom were scheduled to undergo radical prostatectomy and underwent preoperative 3-T multiparametric magnetic resonance (MR) imaging, including T2-weighted, diffusion-weighted, and dynamic contrast material-enhanced imaging, were included. The digitized prostatectomy slides were annotated for cancer and noncancerous disease and coregistered to MR imaging with an interactive deformable coregistration scheme. Computer-identified features for each of the noncancerous disease categories (eg, benign prostatic hyperplasia [BPH], prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia [PIN], inflammation, and atrophy) and prostate cancer were extracted. Feature selection was performed to identify the features with the highest discriminatory power. The performance of these five features was evaluated by using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC).
RESULTS: High-b-value diffusion-weighted images were more discriminative in distinguishing BPH from prostate cancer than apparent diffusion coefficient, which was most suitable for distinguishing PIN from prostate cancer. The focal appearance of lesions on dynamic contrast-enhanced images may help discriminate atrophy and inflammation from cancer. Which imaging features are discriminative for different benign lesions is influenced by cancer grade. The apparent diffusion coefficient appeared to be the most discriminative feature in identifying high-grade cancer. Classification results showed increased performance by taking into account specific benign types (AUC = 0.70) compared with grouping all noncancerous findings together (AUC = 0.62).
CONCLUSION: The best features with which to discriminate prostate cancer from noncancerous benign disease depend on the type of benign disease and cancer grade. Use of the best features may result in better diagnostic performance. © RSNA, 2015

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26192734      PMCID: PMC4699495          DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2015142856

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  23 in total

Review 1.  Prostate cancer: multiparametric MR imaging for detection, localization, and staging.

Authors:  Caroline M A Hoeks; Jelle O Barentsz; Thomas Hambrock; Derya Yakar; Diederik M Somford; Stijn W T P J Heijmink; Tom W J Scheenen; Pieter C Vos; Henkjan Huisman; Inge M van Oort; J Alfred Witjes; Arend Heerschap; Jurgen J Fütterer
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2011-10       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  Selective enhancement filters for nodules, vessels, and airway walls in two- and three-dimensional CT scans.

Authors:  Qiang Li; Shusuke Sone; Kunio Doi
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2003-08       Impact factor: 4.071

3.  Use of patient-specific MRI-based prostate mold for validation of multiparametric MRI in localization of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Hari Trivedi; Baris Turkbey; Ardeshir R Rastinehad; Compton J Benjamin; Marcelino Bernardo; Thomas Pohida; Vijay Shah; Maria J Merino; Bradford J Wood; W Marston Linehan; Aradhana M Venkatesan; Peter L Choyke; Peter A Pinto
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 2.649

4.  Differentiation of central gland prostate cancer from benign prostatic hyperplasia using monoexponential and biexponential diffusion-weighted imaging.

Authors:  Xiaohang Liu; Liangping Zhou; Weijun Peng; Chaofu Wang; He Wang
Journal:  Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2013-06-21       Impact factor: 2.546

5.  Central gland and peripheral zone prostate tumors have significantly different quantitative imaging signatures on 3 Tesla endorectal, in vivo T2-weighted MR imagery.

Authors:  Satish E Viswanath; Nicholas B Bloch; Jonathan C Chappelow; Robert Toth; Neil M Rofsky; Elizabeth M Genega; Robert E Lenkinski; Anant Madabhushi
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2012-02-15       Impact factor: 4.813

6.  Computer-assisted analysis of peripheral zone prostate lesions using T2-weighted and dynamic contrast enhanced T1-weighted MRI.

Authors:  Pieter C Vos; Thomas Hambrock; Jelle O Barenstz; Henkjan J Huisman
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2010-03-02       Impact factor: 3.609

7.  Prostate cancer screening: the clinical value of diffusion-weighted imaging and dynamic MR imaging in combination with T2-weighted imaging.

Authors:  Akihiro Tanimoto; Jun Nakashima; Hidaka Kohno; Hiroshi Shinmoto; Sachio Kuribayashi
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2007-01       Impact factor: 4.813

8.  Relationship between apparent diffusion coefficients at 3.0-T MR imaging and Gleason grade in peripheral zone prostate cancer.

Authors:  Thomas Hambrock; Diederik M Somford; Henkjan J Huisman; Inge M van Oort; J Alfred Witjes; Christina A Hulsbergen-van de Kaa; Thomas Scheenen; Jelle O Barentsz
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2011-05       Impact factor: 11.105

9.  Computerized image analysis for identifying triple-negative breast cancers and differentiating them from other molecular subtypes of breast cancer on dynamic contrast-enhanced MR images: a feasibility study.

Authors:  Shannon C Agner; Mark A Rosen; Sarah Englander; John E Tomaszewski; Michael D Feldman; Paul Zhang; Carolyn Mies; Mitchell D Schnall; Anant Madabhushi
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2014-03-10       Impact factor: 11.105

10.  ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012.

Authors:  Jelle O Barentsz; Jonathan Richenberg; Richard Clements; Peter Choyke; Sadhna Verma; Geert Villeirs; Olivier Rouviere; Vibeke Logager; Jurgen J Fütterer
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2012-02-10       Impact factor: 5.315

View more
  23 in total

1.  Radiomics-Based Intracranial Thrombus Features on CT and CTA Predict Recanalization with Intravenous Alteplase in Patients with Acute Ischemic Stroke.

Authors:  W Qiu; H Kuang; J Nair; Z Assis; M Najm; C McDougall; B McDougall; K Chung; A T Wilson; M Goyal; M D Hill; A M Demchuk; B K Menon
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2018-12-20       Impact factor: 3.825

2.  Computer-aided diagnosis prior to conventional interpretation of prostate mpMRI: an international multi-reader study.

Authors:  Matthew D Greer; Nathan Lay; Joanna H Shih; Tristan Barrett; Leonardo Kayat Bittencourt; Samuel Borofsky; Ismail Kabakus; Yan Mee Law; Jamie Marko; Haytham Shebel; Francesca V Mertan; Maria J Merino; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto; Ronald M Summers; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2018-04-12       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  Classification of suspicious lesions on prostate multiparametric MRI using machine learning.

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

4.  Multimodal Imaging in Focal Therapy Planning and Assessment in Primary Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Hossein Jadvar
Journal:  Clin Transl Imaging       Date:  2017-04-10

Review 5.  Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Prostate, Including Pre- and Postinterventions.

Authors:  Pritesh Patel; Aytekin Oto
Journal:  Semin Intervent Radiol       Date:  2016-09       Impact factor: 1.513

6.  Prostate cancer radiomics and the promise of radiogenomics.

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

7.  Radiomic features for prostate cancer detection on MRI differ between the transition and peripheral zones: Preliminary findings from a multi-institutional study.

Authors:  Shoshana B Ginsburg; Ahmad Algohary; Shivani Pahwa; Vikas Gulani; Lee Ponsky; Hannu J Aronen; Peter J Boström; Maret Böhm; Anne-Maree Haynes; Phillip Brenner; Warick Delprado; James Thompson; Marley Pulbrock; Pekka Taimen; Robert Villani; Phillip Stricker; Ardeshir R Rastinehad; Ivan Jambor; Anant Madabhushi
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2016-12-19       Impact factor: 4.813

8.  Radiomic features on MRI enable risk categorization of prostate cancer patients on active surveillance: Preliminary findings.

Authors:  Ahmad Algohary; Satish Viswanath; Rakesh Shiradkar; Soumya Ghose; Shivani Pahwa; Daniel Moses; Ivan Jambor; Ronald Shnier; Maret Böhm; Anne-Maree Haynes; Phillip Brenner; Warick Delprado; James Thompson; Marley Pulbrock; Andrei S Purysko; Sadhna Verma; Lee Ponsky; Phillip Stricker; Anant Madabhushi
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2018-02-22       Impact factor: 4.813

9.  PRECISION MANAGEMENT OF LOCALIZED PROSTATE CANCER.

Authors:  David J VanderWeele; Baris Turkbey; Adam G Sowalsky
Journal:  Expert Rev Precis Med Drug Dev       Date:  2016-12-12

10.  The Primacy of High B-Value 3T-DWI Radiomics in the Prediction of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Alessandro Bevilacqua; Margherita Mottola; Fabio Ferroni; Alice Rossi; Giampaolo Gavelli; Domenico Barone
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2021-04-21
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.