Harri Merisaari1,2,3, Pekka Taimen4,5, Rakesh Shiradkar3, Otto Ettala6, Marko Pesola1, Jani Saunavaara7, Peter J Boström6, Anant Madabhushi3, Hannu J Aronen1,7, Ivan Jambor1,8. 1. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, University of Turku, Turku, Finland. 2. Department of Future Technologies, University of Turku, Turku, Finland. 3. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio. 4. Institute of Biomedicine, University of Turku, Turku, Finland. 5. Department of Pathology, Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland. 6. Department of Urology, University of Turku and Turku University hospital, Turku, Finland. 7. Medical Imaging Centre of Southwest Finland, Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland. 8. Department of Radiology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate repeatability of prostate DWI-derived radiomics and machine learning methods for prostate cancer (PCa) characterization. METHODS: A total of 112 patients with diagnosed PCa underwent 2 prostate MRI examinations (Scan1 and Scan2) performed on the same day. DWI was performed using 12 b-values (0-2000 s/mm2 ), post-processed using kurtosis function, and PCa areas were annotated using whole mount prostatectomy sections. A total of 1694 radiomic features including Sobel, Kirch, Gradient, Zernike Moments, Gabor, Haralick, CoLIAGe, Haar wavelet coefficients, 3D analogue to Laws features, 2D contours, and corner detectors were calculated. Radiomics and 4 feature pruning methods (area under the receiver operator characteristic curve, maximum relevance minimum redundancy, Spearman's ρ, Wilcoxon rank-sum) were evaluated in terms of Scan1-Scan2 repeatability using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC)(3,1). Classification performance for clinically significant and insignificant PCa with Gleason grade groups 1 versus >1 was evaluated by area under the receiver operator characteristic curve in unseen random 30% data split. RESULTS: The ICC(3,1) values for conventional radiomics and feature pruning methods were in the range of 0.28-0.90. The machine learning classifications varied between Scan1 and Scan2 with % of same class labels between Scan1 and Scan2 in the range of 61-81%. Surface-to-volume ratio and corner detector-based features were among the most represented features with high repeatability, ICC(3,1) >0.75, consistently high ranking using all 4 feature pruning methods, and classification performance with area under the receiver operator characteristic curve >0.70. CONCLUSION: Surface-to-volume ratio and corner detectors for prostate DWI led to good classification of unseen data and performed similarly in Scan1 and Scan2 in contrast to multiple conventional radiomic features.
PURPOSE: To evaluate repeatability of prostate DWI-derived radiomics and machine learning methods for prostate cancer (PCa) characterization. METHODS: A total of 112 patients with diagnosed PCa underwent 2 prostate MRI examinations (Scan1 and Scan2) performed on the same day. DWI was performed using 12 b-values (0-2000 s/mm2 ), post-processed using kurtosis function, and PCa areas were annotated using whole mount prostatectomy sections. A total of 1694 radiomic features including Sobel, Kirch, Gradient, Zernike Moments, Gabor, Haralick, CoLIAGe, Haar wavelet coefficients, 3D analogue to Laws features, 2D contours, and corner detectors were calculated. Radiomics and 4 feature pruning methods (area under the receiver operator characteristic curve, maximum relevance minimum redundancy, Spearman's ρ, Wilcoxon rank-sum) were evaluated in terms of Scan1-Scan2 repeatability using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC)(3,1). Classification performance for clinically significant and insignificant PCa with Gleason grade groups 1 versus >1 was evaluated by area under the receiver operator characteristic curve in unseen random 30% data split. RESULTS: The ICC(3,1) values for conventional radiomics and feature pruning methods were in the range of 0.28-0.90. The machine learning classifications varied between Scan1 and Scan2 with % of same class labels between Scan1 and Scan2 in the range of 61-81%. Surface-to-volume ratio and corner detector-based features were among the most represented features with high repeatability, ICC(3,1) >0.75, consistently high ranking using all 4 feature pruning methods, and classification performance with area under the receiver operator characteristic curve >0.70. CONCLUSION: Surface-to-volume ratio and corner detectors for prostate DWI led to good classification of unseen data and performed similarly in Scan1 and Scan2 in contrast to multiple conventional radiomic features.
Authors: Jussi Toivonen; Harri Merisaari; Marko Pesola; Pekka Taimen; Peter J Boström; Tapio Pahikkala; Hannu J Aronen; Ivan Jambor Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2014-10-20 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Yu Sun; Hayley M Reynolds; Bimal Parameswaran; Darren Wraith; Mary E Finnegan; Scott Williams; Annette Haworth Journal: Australas Phys Eng Sci Med Date: 2019-02-14 Impact factor: 1.430
Authors: Michael Quentin; Gael Pentang; Lars Schimmöller; Olga Kott; Anja Müller-Lutz; Dirk Blondin; Christian Arsov; Andreas Hiester; Robert Rabenalt; Hans-Jörg Wittsack Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2014-04-21 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: Esa Kähkönen; Ivan Jambor; Jukka Kemppainen; Kaisa Lehtiö; Tove J Grönroos; Anna Kuisma; Pauliina Luoto; Henri J Sipilä; Tuula Tolvanen; Kalle Alanen; Jonna Silén; Markku Kallajoki; Anne Roivainen; Niklaus Schäfer; Roger Schibli; Martina Dragic; Anass Johayem; Ray Valencia; Sandra Borkowski; Heikki Minn Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2013-08-09 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Freddie Bray; Jacques Ferlay; Isabelle Soerjomataram; Rebecca L Siegel; Lindsey A Torre; Ahmedin Jemal Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2018-09-12 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Wenya Linda Bi; Ahmed Hosny; Matthew B Schabath; Maryellen L Giger; Nicolai J Birkbak; Alireza Mehrtash; Tavis Allison; Omar Arnaout; Christopher Abbosh; Ian F Dunn; Raymond H Mak; Rulla M Tamimi; Clare M Tempany; Charles Swanton; Udo Hoffmann; Lawrence H Schwartz; Robert J Gillies; Raymond Y Huang; Hugo J W L Aerts Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2019-02-05 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Kathryn E Keenan; Jana G Delfino; Kalina V Jordanova; Megan E Poorman; Prathyush Chirra; Akshay S Chaudhari; Bettina Baessler; Jessica Winfield; Satish E Viswanath; Nandita M deSouza Journal: Med Phys Date: 2021-09-29 Impact factor: 4.506
Authors: Rakesh Shiradkar; Soumya Ghose; Amr Mahran; Lin Li; Isaac Hubbard; Pingfu Fu; Sree Harsha Tirumani; Lee Ponsky; Andrei Purysko; Anant Madabhushi Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2022-05-20 Impact factor: 5.738
Authors: Mohammadhadi Khorrami; Kaustav Bera; Rajat Thawani; Prabhakar Rajiah; Amit Gupta; Pingfu Fu; Philip Linden; Nathan Pennell; Frank Jacono; Robert C Gilkeson; Vamsidhar Velcheti; Anant Madabhushi Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2021-03-17 Impact factor: 9.162