Literature DB >> 31592731

Classification of Cancer at Prostate MRI: Deep Learning versus Clinical PI-RADS Assessment.

Patrick Schelb1, Simon Kohl1, Jan Philipp Radtke1, Manuel Wiesenfarth1, Philipp Kickingereder1, Sebastian Bickelhaupt1, Tristan Anselm Kuder1, Albrecht Stenzinger1, Markus Hohenfellner1, Heinz-Peter Schlemmer1, Klaus H Maier-Hein1, David Bonekamp1.   

Abstract

Background Men suspected of having clinically significant prostate cancer (sPC) increasingly undergo prostate MRI. The potential of deep learning to provide diagnostic support for human interpretation requires further evaluation. Purpose To compare the performance of clinical assessment to a deep learning system optimized for segmentation trained with T2-weighted and diffusion MRI in the task of detection and segmentation of lesions suspicious for sPC. Materials and Methods In this retrospective study, T2-weighted and diffusion prostate MRI sequences from consecutive men examined with a single 3.0-T MRI system between 2015 and 2016 were manually segmented. Ground truth was provided by combined targeted and extended systematic MRI-transrectal US fusion biopsy, with sPC defined as International Society of Urological Pathology Gleason grade group greater than or equal to 2. By using split-sample validation, U-Net was internally validated on the training set (80% of the data) through cross validation and subsequently externally validated on the test set (20% of the data). U-Net-derived sPC probability maps were calibrated by matching sextant-based cross-validation performance to clinical performance of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS). Performance of PI-RADS and U-Net were compared by using sensitivities, specificities, predictive values, and Dice coefficient. Results A total of 312 men (median age, 64 years; interquartile range [IQR], 58-71 years) were evaluated. The training set consisted of 250 men (median age, 64 years; IQR, 58-71 years) and the test set of 62 men (median age, 64 years; IQR, 60-69 years). In the test set, PI-RADS cutoffs greater than or equal to 3 versus cutoffs greater than or equal to 4 on a per-patient basis had sensitivity of 96% (25 of 26) versus 88% (23 of 26) at specificity of 22% (eight of 36) versus 50% (18 of 36). U-Net at probability thresholds of greater than or equal to 0.22 versus greater than or equal to 0.33 had sensitivity of 96% (25 of 26) versus 92% (24 of 26) (both P > .99) with specificity of 31% (11 of 36) versus 47% (17 of 36) (both P > .99), not statistically different from PI-RADS. Dice coefficients were 0.89 for prostate and 0.35 for MRI lesion segmentation. In the test set, coincidence of PI-RADS greater than or equal to 4 with U-Net lesions improved the positive predictive value from 48% (28 of 58) to 67% (24 of 36) for U-Net probability thresholds greater than or equal to 0.33 (P = .01), while the negative predictive value remained unchanged (83% [25 of 30] vs 83% [43 of 52]; P > .99). Conclusion U-Net trained with T2-weighted and diffusion MRI achieves similar performance to clinical Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System assessment. © RSNA, 2019 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Padhani and Turkbey in this issue.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31592731     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2019190938

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


  52 in total

1.  Clinico-radiological characteristic-based machine learning in reducing unnecessary prostate biopsies of PI-RADS 3 lesions with dual validation.

Authors:  Yansheng Kan; Qing Zhang; Jiange Hao; Wei Wang; Junlong Zhuang; Jie Gao; Haifeng Huang; Jing Liang; Giancarlo Marra; Giorgio Calleris; Marco Oderda; Xiaozhi Zhao; Paolo Gontero; Hongqian Guo
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2020-06-10       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 2.  [Machine learning and multiparametric MRI for early diagnosis of prostate cancer].

Authors:  D Bonekamp; H-P Schlemmer
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2021-03-12       Impact factor: 0.639

3.  Detecting Prostate Cancer with Deep Learning for MRI: A Small Step Forward.

Authors:  Anwar R Padhani; Baris Turkbey
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2019-10-08       Impact factor: 11.105

4.  Test-retest repeatability of a deep learning architecture in detecting and segmenting clinically significant prostate cancer on apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) maps.

Authors:  Amogh Hiremath; Rakesh Shiradkar; Harri Merisaari; Prateek Prasanna; Otto Ettala; Pekka Taimen; Hannu J Aronen; Peter J Boström; Ivan Jambor; Anant Madabhushi
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2020-07-23       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 5.  [Artificial intelligence and radiomics in MRI-based prostate diagnostics].

Authors:  Charlie Alexander Hamm; Nick Lasse Beetz; Lynn Jeanette Savic; Tobias Penzkofer
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2020-01       Impact factor: 0.635

6.  Improving detection of prostate cancer foci via information fusion of MRI and temporal enhanced ultrasound.

Authors:  Alireza Sedghi; Alireza Mehrtash; Amoon Jamzad; Amel Amalou; William M Wells; Tina Kapur; Jin Tae Kwak; Baris Turkbey; Peter Choyke; Peter Pinto; Bradford Wood; Sheng Xu; Purang Abolmaesumi; Parvin Mousavi
Journal:  Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg       Date:  2020-05-05       Impact factor: 2.924

Review 7.  Machine learning for sperm selection.

Authors:  Jae Bem You; Christopher McCallum; Yihe Wang; Jason Riordon; Reza Nosrati; David Sinton
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2021-05-17       Impact factor: 14.432

8.  Preparing Medical Imaging Data for Machine Learning.

Authors:  Martin J Willemink; Wojciech A Koszek; Cailin Hardell; Jie Wu; Dominik Fleischmann; Hugh Harvey; Les R Folio; Ronald M Summers; Daniel L Rubin; Matthew P Lungren
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2020-02-18       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 9.  Epidemiology and genomics of prostate cancer in Asian men.

Authors:  Yao Zhu; Miao Mo; Yu Wei; Junlong Wu; Jian Pan; Stephen J Freedland; Ying Zheng; Dingwei Ye
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2021-03-10       Impact factor: 14.432

Review 10.  Machine Learning and Radiomics Applications in Esophageal Cancers Using Non-Invasive Imaging Methods-A Critical Review of Literature.

Authors:  Chen-Yi Xie; Chun-Lap Pang; Benjamin Chan; Emily Yuen-Yuen Wong; Qi Dou; Varut Vardhanabhuti
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2021-05-19       Impact factor: 6.639

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.