Literature DB >> 32767102

Simulated clinical deployment of fully automatic deep learning for clinical prostate MRI assessment.

Patrick Schelb1, Xianfeng Wang1,2, Jan Philipp Radtke1,3, Manuel Wiesenfarth4, Philipp Kickingereder5, Albrecht Stenzinger6, Markus Hohenfellner3, Heinz-Peter Schlemmer1,7, Klaus H Maier-Hein7,8, David Bonekamp9,10.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To simulate clinical deployment, evaluate performance, and establish quality assurance of a deep learning algorithm (U-Net) for detection, localization, and segmentation of clinically significant prostate cancer (sPC), ISUP grade group ≥ 2, using bi-parametric MRI.
METHODS: In 2017, 284 consecutive men in active surveillance, biopsy-naïve or pre-biopsied, received targeted and extended systematic MRI/transrectal US-fusion biopsy, after examination on a single MRI scanner (3 T). A prospective adjustment scheme was evaluated comparing the performance of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) and U-Net using sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, and the Dice coefficient.
RESULTS: In the 259 eligible men (median 64 [IQR 61-72] years), PI-RADS had a sensitivity of 98% [106/108]/84% [91/108] with a specificity of 17% [25/151]/58% [88/151], for thresholds at ≥ 3/≥ 4 respectively. U-Net using dynamic threshold adjustment had a sensitivity of 99% [107/108]/83% [90/108] (p > 0.99/> 0.99) with a specificity of 24% [36/151]/55% [83/151] (p > 0.99/> 0.99) for probability thresholds d3 and d4 emulating PI-RADS ≥ 3 and ≥ 4 decisions respectively, not statistically different from PI-RADS. Co-occurrence of a radiological PI-RADS ≥ 4 examination and U-Net ≥ d3 assessment significantly improved the positive predictive value from 59 to 63% (p = 0.03), on a per-patient basis.
CONCLUSIONS: U-Net has similar performance to PI-RADS in simulated continued clinical use. Regular quality assurance should be implemented to ensure desired performance. KEY POINTS: • U-Net maintained similar diagnostic performance compared to radiological assessment of PI-RADS ≥ 4 when applied in a simulated clinical deployment. • Application of our proposed prospective dynamic calibration method successfully adjusted U-Net performance within acceptable limits of the PI-RADS reference over time, while not being limited to PI-RADS as a reference. • Simultaneous detection by U-Net and radiological assessment significantly improved the positive predictive value on a per-patient and per-lesion basis, while the negative predictive value remained unchanged.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Artificial intelligence; Decision support systems, clinical; Deep learning; Magnetic resonance imaging; Prostate cancer

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32767102      PMCID: PMC7755653          DOI: 10.1007/s00330-020-07086-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Radiol        ISSN: 0938-7994            Impact factor:   5.315


  6 in total

Review 1.  Role of Deep Learning in Prostate Cancer Management: Past, Present and Future Based on a Comprehensive Literature Review.

Authors:  Nithesh Naik; Theodoros Tokas; Dasharathraj K Shetty; B M Zeeshan Hameed; Sarthak Shastri; Milap J Shah; Sufyan Ibrahim; Bhavan Prasad Rai; Piotr Chłosta; Bhaskar K Somani
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2022-06-21       Impact factor: 4.964

2.  Deep learning for fully automatic detection, segmentation, and Gleason grade estimation of prostate cancer in multiparametric magnetic resonance images.

Authors:  Oscar J Pellicer-Valero; José L Marenco Jiménez; Victor Gonzalez-Perez; Juan Luis Casanova Ramón-Borja; Isabel Martín García; María Barrios Benito; Paula Pelechano Gómez; José Rubio-Briones; María José Rupérez; José D Martín-Guerrero
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-02-22       Impact factor: 4.379

Review 3.  Current Value of Biparametric Prostate MRI with Machine-Learning or Deep-Learning in the Detection, Grading, and Characterization of Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Henrik J Michaely; Giacomo Aringhieri; Dania Cioni; Emanuele Neri
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2022-03-24

Review 4.  Artificial intelligence for prostate MRI: open datasets, available applications, and grand challenges.

Authors:  Mohammed R S Sunoqrot; Anindo Saha; Matin Hosseinzadeh; Mattijs Elschot; Henkjan Huisman
Journal:  Eur Radiol Exp       Date:  2022-08-01

Review 5.  A review of artificial intelligence in prostate cancer detection on imaging.

Authors:  Indrani Bhattacharya; Yash S Khandwala; Sulaiman Vesal; Wei Shao; Qianye Yang; Simon J C Soerensen; Richard E Fan; Pejman Ghanouni; Christian A Kunder; James D Brooks; Yipeng Hu; Mirabela Rusu; Geoffrey A Sonn
Journal:  Ther Adv Urol       Date:  2022-10-10

Review 6.  Artificial Intelligence Based Algorithms for Prostate Cancer Classification and Detection on Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Narrative Review.

Authors:  Jasper J Twilt; Kicky G van Leeuwen; Henkjan J Huisman; Jurgen J Fütterer; Maarten de Rooij
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2021-05-26
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.