Charlie Alexander Hamm1, Nick Lasse Beetz1, Lynn Jeanette Savic1, Tobias Penzkofer2,3. 1. Institute of Radiology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität, and Berlin Institute of Health, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Deutschland. 2. Institute of Radiology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität, and Berlin Institute of Health, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Deutschland. tobias.penzkofer@charite.de. 3. Berlin Institute of Health, 10178, Berlin, Deutschland. tobias.penzkofer@charite.de.
Abstract
CLINICAL/METHODICAL ISSUE: In view of the diagnostic complexity and the large number of examinations, modern radiology is challenged to identify clinically significant prostate cancer (PCa) with high sensitivity and specificity. Meanwhile overdiagnosis and overtreatment of clinically nonsignificant carcinomas need to be avoided. STANDARD RADIOLOGICAL METHODS: Increasingly, international guidelines recommend multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) as first-line investigation in patients with suspected PCa. METHODICAL INNOVATIONS: Image interpretation according to the PI-RADS criteria is limited by interobserver variability. Thus, rapid developments in the field of automated image analysis tools, including radiomics and artificial intelligence (AI; machine learning, deep learning), give hope for further improvement in patient care. PERFORMANCE: AI focuses on the automated detection and classification of PCa, but it also attempts to stratify tumor aggressiveness according to the Gleason score. Recent studies present good to very good results in radiomics or AI-supported mpMRI diagnosis. Nevertheless, these systems are not widely used in clinical practice. ACHIEVEMENTS AND PRACTICAL RECOMMENDATIONS: In order to apply these innovative technologies, a growing awareness for the need of structured data acquisition, development of robust systems and an increased acceptance of AI as diagnostic support are needed. If AI overcomes these obstacles, it may play a key role in the quantitative and reproducible image-based diagnosis of ever-increasing prostate MRI examination volumes.
CLINICAL/METHODICAL ISSUE: In view of the diagnostic complexity and the large number of examinations, modern radiology is challenged to identify clinically significant prostate cancer (PCa) with high sensitivity and specificity. Meanwhile overdiagnosis and overtreatment of clinically nonsignificant carcinomas need to be avoided. STANDARD RADIOLOGICAL METHODS: Increasingly, international guidelines recommend multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) as first-line investigation in patients with suspected PCa. METHODICAL INNOVATIONS: Image interpretation according to the PI-RADS criteria is limited by interobserver variability. Thus, rapid developments in the field of automated image analysis tools, including radiomics and artificial intelligence (AI; machine learning, deep learning), give hope for further improvement in patient care. PERFORMANCE: AI focuses on the automated detection and classification of PCa, but it also attempts to stratify tumor aggressiveness according to the Gleason score. Recent studies present good to very good results in radiomics or AI-supported mpMRI diagnosis. Nevertheless, these systems are not widely used in clinical practice. ACHIEVEMENTS AND PRACTICAL RECOMMENDATIONS: In order to apply these innovative technologies, a growing awareness for the need of structured data acquisition, development of robust systems and an increased acceptance of AI as diagnostic support are needed. If AI overcomes these obstacles, it may play a key role in the quantitative and reproducible image-based diagnosis of ever-increasing prostate MRI examination volumes.
Entities:
Keywords:
Deep learning; Machine learning; Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging; Prostate cancer; Quantitative imaging
Authors: Stacy Loeb; Marc A Bjurlin; Joseph Nicholson; Teuvo L Tammela; David F Penson; H Ballentine Carter; Peter Carroll; Ruth Etzioni Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2014-01-09 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: David Bonekamp; Simon Kohl; Manuel Wiesenfarth; Patrick Schelb; Jan Philipp Radtke; Michael Götz; Philipp Kickingereder; Kaneschka Yaqubi; Bertram Hitthaler; Nils Gählert; Tristan Anselm Kuder; Fenja Deister; Martin Freitag; Markus Hohenfellner; Boris A Hadaschik; Heinz-Peter Schlemmer; Klaus H Maier-Hein Journal: Radiology Date: 2018-07-31 Impact factor: 11.105
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
Authors: Andre Esteva; Brett Kuprel; Roberto A Novoa; Justin Ko; Susan M Swetter; Helen M Blau; Sebastian Thrun Journal: Nature Date: 2017-01-25 Impact factor: 49.962