Literature DB >> 31436365

Artificial intelligence-based versus manual assessment of prostate cancer in the prostate gland: a method comparison study.

Mike A Mortensen1,2, Pablo Borrelli3, Mads Hvid Poulsen1, Oke Gerke4, Olof Enqvist5, Johannes Ulén6, Elin Trägårdh7,8, Caius Constantinescu4, Lars Edenbrandt3, Lars Lund1,2, Poul Flemming Høilund-Carlsen2,4.   

Abstract

AIM: To test the feasibility of a fully automated artificial intelligence-based method providing PET measures of prostate cancer (PCa).
METHODS: A convolutional neural network (CNN) was trained for automated measurements in 18 F-choline (FCH) PET/CT scans obtained prior to radical prostatectomy (RP) in 45 patients with newly diagnosed PCa. Automated values were obtained for prostate volume, maximal standardized uptake value (SUVmax ), mean standardized uptake value of voxels considered abnormal (SUVmean ) and volume of abnormal voxels (Volabn ). The product SUVmean  × Volabn was calculated to reflect total lesion uptake (TLU). Corresponding manual measurements were performed. CNN-estimated data were compared with the weighted surgically removed tissue specimens and manually derived data and related to clinical parameters assuming that 1 g ≈ 1 ml of tissue.
RESULTS: The mean (range) weight of the prostate specimens was 44 g (20-109), while CNN-estimated volume was 62 ml (31-108) with a mean difference of 13·5 g or ml (95% CI: 9·78-17·32). The two measures were significantly correlated (r = 0·77, P<0·001). Mean differences (95% CI) between CNN-based and manually derived PET measures of SUVmax, SUVmean, Volabn (ml) and TLU were 0·37 (-0·01 to 0·75), -0·08 (-0·30 to 0·14), 1·40 (-2·26 to 5·06) and 9·61 (-3·95 to 23·17), respectively. PET findings Volabn and TLU correlated with PSA (P<0·05), but not with Gleason score or stage.
CONCLUSION: Automated CNN segmentation provided in seconds volume and simple PET measures similar to manually derived ones. Further studies on automated CNN segmentation with newer tracers such as radiolabelled prostate-specific membrane antigen are warranted.
© 2019 Scandinavian Society of Clinical Physiology and Nuclear Medicine. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  agreement; choline; convolutional neural network; diagnostic imaging; positron emission tomography; prostatic neoplasms

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31436365     DOI: 10.1111/cpf.12592

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Physiol Funct Imaging        ISSN: 1475-0961            Impact factor:   2.273


  6 in total

Review 1.  The role of MRI in prostate cancer: current and future directions.

Authors:  Maria Clara Fernandes; Onur Yildirim; Sungmin Woo; Hebert Alberto Vargas; Hedvig Hricak
Journal:  MAGMA       Date:  2022-03-16       Impact factor: 2.533

Review 2.  Radiomics and artificial intelligence in prostate cancer: new tools for molecular hybrid imaging and theragnostics.

Authors:  Virginia Liberini; Riccardo Laudicella; Michele Balma; Daniele G Nicolotti; Ambra Buschiazzo; Serena Grimaldi; Leda Lorenzon; Andrea Bianchi; Simona Peano; Tommaso Vincenzo Bartolotta; Mohsen Farsad; Sergio Baldari; Irene A Burger; Martin W Huellner; Alberto Papaleo; Désirée Deandreis
Journal:  Eur Radiol Exp       Date:  2022-06-15

3.  CT based automatic clinical target volume delineation using a dense-fully connected convolution network for cervical Cancer radiation therapy.

Authors:  Zhongjian Ju; Wen Guo; Shanshan Gu; Jin Zhou; Wei Yang; Xiaohu Cong; Xiangkun Dai; Hong Quan; Jie Liu; Baolin Qu; Guocai Liu
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2021-03-08       Impact factor: 4.430

Review 4.  A review of the application of machine learning in molecular imaging.

Authors:  Lin Yin; Zhen Cao; Kun Wang; Jie Tian; Xing Yang; Jianhua Zhang
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2021-05

Review 5.  Radiomics in prostate cancer: an up-to-date review.

Authors:  Matteo Ferro; Ottavio de Cobelli; Gennaro Musi; Francesco Del Giudice; Giuseppe Carrieri; Gian Maria Busetto; Ugo Giovanni Falagario; Alessandro Sciarra; Martina Maggi; Felice Crocetto; Biagio Barone; Vincenzo Francesco Caputo; Michele Marchioni; Giuseppe Lucarelli; Ciro Imbimbo; Francesco Alessandro Mistretta; Stefano Luzzago; Mihai Dorin Vartolomei; Luigi Cormio; Riccardo Autorino; Octavian Sabin Tătaru
Journal:  Ther Adv Urol       Date:  2022-07-04

6.  Decision-Making in Artificial Intelligence: Is It Always Correct?

Authors:  Hun Sung Kim
Journal:  J Korean Med Sci       Date:  2020-01-06       Impact factor: 2.153

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.