BACKGROUND: To investigate if supervised machine learning (ML) classifiers would be able to predict clinically significant cancer (sPC) from a set of quantitative image-features and to compare these results with established PI-RADS v2 assessment scores. METHODS: We retrospectively included 201, histopathologically-proven, peripheral zone (PZ) prostate cancer lesions. Gleason scores ≤3+3 were considered as clinically insignificant (inPC) and Gleason scores ≥3+4 as sPC and were encoded in a binary fashion, serving as ground-truth. MRI was performed at 3T with high spatiotemporal resolution DCE using Golden-angle RAdial SParse (GRASP) MRI. Perfusion maps (Ktrans, Kep, Ve), apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), and absolute T2-signal intensities (SI) were determined in all lesions and served as input parameters for four supervised ML models: Gradient Boosting Machines (GBM), Neural Networks (NNet), Random Forest (RF) and Support Vector Machines (SVM). ML results and PI-RADS scores were compared with the ground-truth. Next ROC-curves and AUC values were calculated. RESULTS: All ML models outperformed PI-RADS v2 assessment scores in the prediction of sPC (RF, GBM, NNet and SVM vs. PI-RADS: AUC 0.899, 0.864, 0.884 and 0.874 vs. 0.595, all P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Using quantitative imaging parameters as input, supervised ML models outperformed PI-RADS v2 assessment scores in the prediction of sPC. These results indicate that quantitative imagining parameters contain relevant information for the prediction of sPC from image features. 2020 Quantitative Imaging in Medicine and Surgery. All rights reserved.
BACKGROUND: To investigate if supervised machine learning (ML) classifiers would be able to predict clinically significant cancer (sPC) from a set of quantitative image-features and to compare these results with established PI-RADS v2 assessment scores. METHODS: We retrospectively included 201, histopathologically-proven, peripheral zone (PZ) prostate cancer lesions. Gleason scores ≤3+3 were considered as clinically insignificant (inPC) and Gleason scores ≥3+4 as sPC and were encoded in a binary fashion, serving as ground-truth. MRI was performed at 3T with high spatiotemporal resolution DCE using Golden-angle RAdial SParse (GRASP) MRI. Perfusion maps (Ktrans, Kep, Ve), apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), and absolute T2-signal intensities (SI) were determined in all lesions and served as input parameters for four supervised ML models: Gradient Boosting Machines (GBM), Neural Networks (NNet), Random Forest (RF) and Support Vector Machines (SVM). ML results and PI-RADS scores were compared with the ground-truth. Next ROC-curves and AUC values were calculated. RESULTS: All ML models outperformed PI-RADS v2 assessment scores in the prediction of sPC (RF, GBM, NNet and SVM vs. PI-RADS: AUC 0.899, 0.864, 0.884 and 0.874 vs. 0.595, all P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Using quantitative imaging parameters as input, supervised ML models outperformed PI-RADS v2 assessment scores in the prediction of sPC. These results indicate that quantitative imagining parameters contain relevant information for the prediction of sPC from image features. 2020 Quantitative Imaging in Medicine and Surgery. All rights reserved.
Entities:
Keywords:
Prostatic neoplasms; magnetic resonance imaging (MRI); supervised machine learning
Authors: Jeffrey C Weinreb; Jelle O Barentsz; Peter L Choyke; Francois Cornud; Masoom A Haider; Katarzyna J Macura; Daniel Margolis; Mitchell D Schnall; Faina Shtern; Clare M Tempany; Harriet C Thoeny; Sadna Verma Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2015-10-01 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Matthew D Greer; Joanna H Shih; Nathan Lay; Tristan Barrett; Leonardo Kayat Bittencourt; Samuel Borofsky; Ismail M 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: Radiology Date: 2017-07-19 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Daniel N Costa; B Nicolas Bloch; David F Yao; Martin G Sanda; Long Ngo; Elizabeth M Genega; Ivan Pedrosa; William C DeWolf; Neil M Rofsky Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2013-04-18 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: Lorelei A Mucci; Anna Powolny; Edward Giovannucci; Zhiming Liao; Stacey A Kenfield; Rulong Shen; Meir J Stampfer; Steven K Clinton Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-10-26 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Li Feng; Robert Grimm; Kai Tobias Block; Hersh Chandarana; Sungheon Kim; Jian Xu; Leon Axel; Daniel K Sodickson; Ricardo Otazo Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2013-10-18 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Lorraine Abel; Jakob Wasserthal; Thomas Weikert; Alexander W Sauter; Ivan Nesic; Marko Obradovic; Shan Yang; Sebastian Manneck; Carl Glessgen; Johanna M Ospel; Bram Stieltjes; Daniel T Boll; Björn Friebe Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2021-05-19